Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WANDSWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS BILL [Lords]

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Potatoes (Carriage)

r. John Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that wholesale potato merchants in Bolton have been advised by the regional traffic officer that no part of their fuel issue may be used for carrying potatoes by road from the Eastern Counties or Yorkshire; and, in view of the fact that rail traffic demands the use of jute bags which are in short supply, and that these merchants have equipped themselves with suitable vehicles at great expense to handle this traffic, if he will take steps to annul this order.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The district transport officer's instruction was due to a misunderstanding. As soon as this was discovered the instruction was cancelled and the Bolton Potato Merchants' Association so informed.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is the Minister aware that this confusion and the loss of £10 million to the taxpayer is due to interference by the Ministry of Food with the law of supply and demand, especially with potatoes?

Mr. Barnes: I do not recognise the figure of £10 million in connection with this issue.

Shipping (Freight Payments)

6. Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Transport what is the average time lapse between shipping of freights and payment made by Government Departments.

Mr. Barnes: In general Government Departments make their shipping arrangements through ordinary commercial channels and I am therefore concerned only with freight payments made by my own Department. These are very small in amount and number, and are usually made within a week of the date of receiving claims.

Mr. Williams: Although the Minister says these cases are very small in number, is he aware that in many cases there is a great deal more delay than one week, and that it is placing some small shipping companies in great difficulty? Is he aware that this is a very bad example for the British Government to set?

Mr. Barnes: Is the hon. Member referring to claims on my own Department? If so, and if he has any specific case in mind, I will look into it. If it affects another Department, he should put the Question to the Minister concerned.

Mr. Williams: I will put it to one Department or the other.

Bus Stops (Car Parking)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a regulation to prohibit vehicles other than buses from drawing up or parking within ten yards of an authorised bus stop and thus prevent the dislocation of bus queues.

Mr. Barnes: Bus stop markings on the carriageway are being laid at a number of busy bus stops and experience shows that these are sufficient to discourage parking at such places. I do not propose to make a regulation at present.

Mr. Haire: Will my right hon. Friend expedite the marking of these bus stops in the way he suggests because a great deal of distress is being caused, particularly to women, children and old persons, as a result of the dislocation caused by unnecessary parking?

Mr. Barnes: This is largely a matter for the initiative of local authorities, They know my general views on the subject.

Colonel Dower: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of bus drivers are very careless in pulling up at the stops themselves, and in the interests of the passengers, as well as of any regulation he makes, will he draw the attention of the Board to this, as the regulation would otherwise be useless?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, although that is rather a different question.

Mr. J. Lewis: When he is considering this matter, will the Minister bear in mind that very often vehicles loading and unloading goods have to pull up adjacent to a bus stop and that due consideration should be given to the drivers of those vehicles?

Mr. Barnes: Yes. As a matter of fact, general experience is that drivers are fairly careful to avoid such places as far as possible.

Footpath, Thorpe

Captain Marsden: asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the danger to pedestrians in Sandhills Lane, Thorpe, Surrey, owing to there being no footpath; and when is it intended that a footpath shall be constructed.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sit. The Surrey County Council, with whom the initiative rests as local highway authority, had a proposal for a footpath under consideration about a year ago, but it was not then found possible to provide for the scheme within the Road Fund estimates. Any application the council may now make for a grant will have my sympathetic consideration.

Captain Marsden: Is the Minister aware that it is considerably more than a year ago—in 1947—that the first application was made? Having now indicated that he would approve a grant, would the Minister accelerate this very necessary grant so that it can be made as soon as possible?

Mr. Barnes: I did not indicate that I would approve a grant. I said it would receive my sympathetic consideration.

Road Maintenance (Grants)

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Transport what official representations he

has received on the inadequacy of his policy towards financing programmes of highway maintenance; whether he is satisfied that his grants are sufficient to ensure a reasonable standard of highway repair; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Barnes: Since I informed highway authorities in January of the grants likely to be made from the Road Fund towards the cost of maintenance of classified roads in 1949–50, two associations of local authorities and a few individual authorities have represented to me that the proposed grants will be inadequate for the satisfactory maintenance of the roads. I regret that existing economic conditions do not permit a larger provision but it is an advance on that for the financial year just ended and should enable the most important requirements to be reasonably well met.

Mr. Harrison: I am sure the general public will be reassured by the interest that my right hon. Friend is showing in this matter.

Bicycles (Road Safety)

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Transport if, in the interests of road safety, and in view of the improved supply position, he will now use his powers under the Road Traffic Acts of 1930 and 1934 to issue regulations requiring pedal cycles to be fitted with two efficient brakes and a bell.

Mr. Barnes: Regulations to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Road Safety on this subject are under consideration.

Mr. Symonds: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication as to how long that consideration is likely to take? Is he aware that in towns like Cambridge, where the number of cyclists in proportion to the population is very large, the defective brakes on pedal cycles are sometimes direct and frequently contributory causes of accidents? One recently was fatal.

Mr. Barnes: No, I am afraid I cannot at the moment put any time to the examination of this problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Dumped Aircraft Components

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Minister of Supply how many new, used or scrap aircraft engines were dumped by his Department in a pit near the aerodrome at Meir, Stoke-on-Trent; whether these and other aircraft components so dumped were first offered to the scrap or engineering trades; and what was the cost of dumping.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): Several hundred scrap aero engines, but no new ones, were dumped at Meir about three years ago. I regret that I am unable to trace whether they were first offered to the scrap or engineering trades. The cost of dumping was trifling.

Mr. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the second case in my constituency of extraordinarily wasteful practices by his Ministry? First, it was wireless sets, and now valuable scrap—accessories, magnetos, and so on—which ought to have been offered to the trade. Can he confirm the fact that this material was not offered?

Mr. Strauss: I am afraid I cannot, because it happens that the people responsible are no longer with my Ministry, and I find it impossible to find an answer to that question.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to review the whole question of scrap of aeroplanes and engines, as many of these parts could be used by civil operators on the air lift?

Mr. Strauss: I am quite satisfied with the present system of getting rid of scrap or unwanted parts of aeroplanes. It is only that three years ago, it appears, some disused parts were dumped.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to tell the House that no records are kept in his Department of offers made by his Department?

Mr. Strauss: There are ample records, but we cannot prove whether these articles were offered to the scrap merchants or to the trade.

Radar Apparatus (Export)

Mr. Cobb: asked the Minister of Supply whether he has completed his inquiries on the possibility of our earning Canadian dollars by supplying part of the equipment for the projected radar interceptor network across Northern Canada; and if he will now make a statement.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am not yet in a position to add anything to my reply to a previous Question by my hon. Friend on 21st March.

Mr. Cobb: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that reports indicate that the American and Canadian authorities have decided to put this equipment into separate radar networks across Northern Canada, and that my calculations indicate that this project will mean something like 40 stations costing £1 million each? As this is a type of business this country is well able to take care of, will my right hon. Friend ask the President of the Board of Trade to consult with the Canadian authorities during his projected visit?

Mr. Strauss: I am aware of the reports about the installation of this equipment, and I am making inquiries. As soon as I can, I will let my hon. Friend know.

Military Aircraft (Exports)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Minister of Supply to which countries respectively were the following British military aircraft, Mosquito, Spitfire, Vampire, Tempest and Meteor, exported during the year ended 31st December, 1948.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a list of countries in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:

During the year ended 31st December, 1948, these aircraft were delivered to the following countries:

Mosquito: Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, France, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Turkey.

Spitfire: Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Holland, India, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden.

Vampire: France, India, Norway.

Tempest: India, Pakistan.

Meteor:—Argentine, Belgium, France, Holland.

Non-Ferrous Metals Production

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Supply what are the names of his principal advisers, both full-time and part-time, on matters relating to the production of non-ferrous metals in the United Kingdom; and what is the approximate division of duties between the several officers and consultants.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: It has recently been decided that arrangements shall be made for my Department to take over general responsibility for the production of nonferrous metals in the United Kingdom, except the inspection of health, safety and welfare measures. The division of responsibility between Departments has not yet been closely defined and no advisers have been appointed.

Mr. Marshall: Will the Minister see to it, when he does appoint these advisers, that amongst them are some technical experts in Cornish tin mining?

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member may be sure that I shall appoint people who will be best equipped for the job.

Mr. Beechman: Does this mean that the right hon. Gentleman's Department will now be responsible for the publication of the survey that is being made about non-ferrous metals in this country?

Mr. Strauss: I think that that is rather a different question, and I should like to see it on the Order Paper.

Iron and Steel (Subsidiary Companies)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply if he is now in a position to announce any alterations to the lists, published on 15th and 22nd November, 1948, of subsidiary companies belonging to iron and steel companies named in the Third Schedule to the Iron and Steel Bill.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: In consequence of Amendments of the Third Schedule to the Iron and Steel Bill, and information which has recently become available to me, there is an appreciable number of amendments to the lists circulated on 15th and 22nd November, 1948. I am sending the hon. Member a revised list showing, according to my present information, the wholly-owned and controlled subsidiaries of companies at present

named in the Third Schedule to the Iron and Steel Bill, and I am also arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Erroll: In view of the intense interest in this matter, could the Minister arrange for the list to be released through the Press Association or, if not, for it to be published in HANSARD?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, I will look into that. I am reluctant to publish it in HANSARD, for the list is very long and will probably have to be revised again.

Mr. Erroll: The right hon. Gentleman could publish the alterations in HANSARD, perhaps?

Mr. Strauss: I will consider that.

Government Contractors

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Supply whether the firm of Bon Marche Limited, of Brixton, is on the list of Government contractors.

Mr. Paget: asked the Minister of Supply whether John Lewis (Partnership) are on the list of Government contractors.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: No, Sir; neither of these firms is on the Ministry of Supply list.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

House of Lords (Portrait)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Works whether he will alter the lighting of the portrait of Queen Victoria hanging near the public entrance to the House of Lords Chamber in order to make it properly visible.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): The existing lighting system is loaded to capacity, but I will review the matter when the new sub-station is in operation.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this portrait, which is a very fine one of a very great Queen, is quite invisible in its present position?

Mr. Key: As I said, I will give due consideration to the matter when the new sub-station is ready.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not asking for additional lighting but for an alteration in the present system?

Mr. Key: I said I could not do that until the new sub-station comes into operation.

Leased Building, South Ruislip

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Works how many buildings in South Ruislip have been taken on lease by his Department; what is the area; what is the cost; and what is the purpose to which these building are to he put.

Mr. Key: My Department has agreed to lease a building now being erected in Victoria Road, South Ruislip. The area, excluding corridors and lavatories, is about 110,000 square feet. It is not customary to disclose rents payable. The building has been allocated to the Air Ministry for use by the United States Air Force.

Mr. Piratin: Could the Minister say on what grounds this building is being offered to the Air Ministry for this purpose? If it is suitable for accommodation, would it not be more fitting to offer it to reduce the waiting list of people in Ruislip and those parts?

Mr. Key: It is not housing accommodation. As to why this is being done, that does not fall to me to decide.

Factory, Feltham

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Works whether he will make a statement about his offer to rent for non-industrial purposes the factory of General Aircraft, Limited, at Feltham; and whether he will postpone entering into any agreement until further efforts have been made to find an industrial tenant.

Mr. Key: I am consulting the Ministers concerned and would prefer not to make any further statement at present.

Mr. Keeling: Does the Minister agree that it is very desirable to find an industrial use for this factory, in view of the large number of craftsmen who will remain out of work if it is used merely for storage?

Mr. Key: That is trying to prejudge the discussions. As I have said, I prefer not to make any further statement now.

Building Workers (Service Departments)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Works how many of the 27,500 building workers employed on work for the Service Departments on 1st March were employed on building houses for members of the Services; and how many were employed on such work in Scotland.

Mr. Key: Of the 27,500 building and civil engineering workers employed on work for the Service Departments at the end of January, 4,100 were employed in building houses for members of the Services. Three hundred and sixty-two of these were employed in Scotland.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not take any more building labour from the local authorities for this work?

Mr. Key: We do not take labour from the local authorities for this work.

Colonel Dower: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this accommodation for the Services is most urgently required, and that it will help recruiting?

Mr. Key: Yes, there is great need for it, and for that reason we shall carry on.

Oral Answers to Questions — KUWAIT (POLITICAL AGENT'S STAFF)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the political agent in Kuwait has had to assume very greatly increased responsibilities as a result of the operations of the Kuwait Oil Company and the consequent importance of Kuwait; and whether he is satisfied that the political agent has all the necessary staff to discharge his duties in these new circumstances.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): My right hon. Friend is aware of this, and arrangements have already been made for the appointment of two additional officers to the political agent's staff.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is adequate air conditioning in the residence and offices of the political agent and his staff, as this greatly assists proficiency in working?

Mr. Mayhew: I will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE RAILWAYS (BRITISH PERSONNEL)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now say what further information he has received regarding the present status of British personnel employed on the Argentine railways.

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Ambassador in Buenos Aires has reported that three British assessors to the Ministry of Transport have been deprived of their post In addition, one deputy manager and a dozen other British employees have been given notice of discharge. In none of these cases have the Argentine authorities offered adequate compensation or produced satisfactory reasons for ending their employment. This is in contravention of the agreement signed between Sir Montague Eddy and Senor Miranda on 13th February, 1947, at the time of the transfer of the railways.
His Majesty's Government are following developments closely, and are by no means satisfied with the way in which the Argentine Government have so far treated their obligations. Further representations are therefore being made to the Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the British railways employees.

Mr. Eden: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House of the results of those representations, and will he make it quite clear that in all parts of this House we do not assent to the Argentine Government's present behaviour?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOMALIS (GOVERNMENT)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the Government's policy regarding the future government of the Somali people, including those in British Somaliland, the Ogaden, Somalia, which was formerly Italian Somaliland, and Juba-land.

Mr. Mayhew: His Majesty's Government propose to continue to administer British Somaliland as a British Protectorate. As regards the Ogaden, British

forces have withdrawn from the greater part of this territory, which has now reverted to Ethiopian administration, though for administrative convenience certain border districts of the Ogaden still remain provisionally under British Military Administration. The future of the former Italian Colony of Somalia, which includes Jubaland, will be decided by the United Nations General Assembly when it reconvenes.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the Minister aware that from 1942 to 1947 practically the whole of the Somali people were united and contented under British administration, and was there not a plan for a united Somaliland, under United Nations trusteeship and under British administration; and further, has not the Secretary of State stated in this House that on no account would Somalia ever go back to Italy?

Mr. Mayhew: His Majesty's Government at one time stated their belief that a united Somalia would be the best solution, but that solution was not supported by the other Powers concerned.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Are we really to understand that the other Powers concerned know anything about Somaliland, with the exception of Italy itself, or about the Somali nation, and is the Under-Secretary aware that the plan for a united Somaliland was sound and just and generally accepted by the Somali people; and was it not only on account of the weakness both of British garrisons and British policy that the state of uncertainty which now prevails in Somaliland came about?

Colonel Dower: Has the Minister taken into consideration the unanimous view of the adjoining territories to Somaliland, whose views are identical with those put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not think there is unanimity of view on this point, and we have to bear in mind the views of the other Powers concerned.

Sir G. Jeffreys: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC PACT

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to convince the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that the Atlantic Pact is for purely defensive purposes.

Mr. Mayhew: It is apparent from the text of the North Atlantic Pact that it is purely defensive in character. This has also been made abundantly clear by my right hon. Friend both in this House and outside.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister explain whether we are still bound by the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship which was signed in 1942 for 20 years; and will he also explain how we can fulfil our obligations under the Anglo Soviet Treaty of Friendship and our obligations under the Atlantic Pact at the same time?

Mr. Mayhew: The Pact is not directed against any State and is fully compatible with the Anglo-Russian Treaty. The Treaty is still technically operative.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: As to the defensive nature of the Pact, is not the acid test of our sincerity in this matter contained in the question: "Would the Government welcome the adherence of Russia to this Pact?" and will my hon. Friend answer that question?

Mr. Mayhew: There is no need whatever to test our sincerity in this matter.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that, according to his own statement in this House, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is not in favour even of defence?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (EXPORT-IMPORT AGENCY)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the respective nationalities of those holding senior posts in the Joint Export-Import Agency.

Mr. Mayhew: Of the eight most senior officials in the Joint Export-Import Agency, three are American, three British and two French.

Mr. Piratin: Would the Minister be kind enough to give some information about the less senior officials?

Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps I may be allowed to write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether each member of the Joint Export-Import Agency Board has one vote only; and whether decisions are binding when determined by a vote of members of the Board.

Mr. Mayhew: As the voting provisions which apply in the Board of the Joint Export-Import Agency are somewhat complicated, I would refer the hon. Member to Article 5 of the Bizonal Fusion Agreement of 17th December, 1947, which was published as a White Paper. The voting arrangements are there described in full.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister say whether the answer to my Question is in the affirmative or otherwise? Is it on a straight and simple vote or are any other arrangements made for taking votes?

Mr. Mayhew: It is not a straight and simple vote. It is complicated, and for that reason I have not given a direct answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE (COMMONWEALTH CANDIDATES)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals are under consideration to extend facilities to Commonwealth candidates desiring to join the United Kingdom Foreign Service to enable them to compete on more equal terms with candidates at home; whether it is intended to enlarge the scheme of exchange and secondment of members of the Commonwealth Foreign Services with the United Kingdom Foreign Service; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Mayhew: There is nothing in existing regulations to prevent young men and women from Commonwealth countries from competing for the United Kingdom Foreign Service on equal terms with candidates at home, and we are considering ways and means of extending facilities for such candidates. However, some


Commonwealth countries now recruit candidates for their own Foreign Services, and we should not wish to attract applications in competition with them. The question of the exchange of members of the United Kingdom Foreign Service and those of Commonwealth countries depends on agreement with Commonwealth Governments. My right hon. Friend will lose no opportunity of promoting such exchanges.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Tinned Fish

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

MR. J. LANGFORD-HOLT,: —To ask the Minister of Food what additional species of tinned fish it is intended to market in the United Kingdom in addition to those which were generally available on the 1st January.

Mr. Speaker: As the Minister is not present at the moment, I will return to this Question later.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order. May I move that the Serjeant at Arms be instructed to send for the Minister?

An Hon. Member: The Minister is just coming.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): Probably tunny and mackerel but I cannot yet say what quantities will be available or when the release will be made.

Syrup and Sweet Biscuits

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, as from 24th April, he will consider de-rationing syrup, treacle and sweet biscuits, since the setting free of these commodities would enable the public to spread their demands and prevent a shortage in any one of them.

Mr. Strachey: I shall continue to take foods off points whenever I can, but I cannot speculate about changes in advance.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the right hon. Gentleman a member of the Government, and will the Government endeavour to see that they feed the people more adequately? Instead of introducing so much unwanted legislation, why not do something for the people's food?

Flour Supplies

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food why Mr. Hackett Jones of Cockmannings Farm, St. Mary Cray, was unable to get a supply of flour, as set out in the particulars which have been sent to him; and why he has brought out a scheme to restrict deliveries.

Mr. Strachey: Mr. Hackett Jones will be able to obtain as much flour for his shop and catering business from his wholesalers as they sold him during the year before bread rationing ended. He cannot expect to buy only self-raising flour. As to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made in the House on 21st July, 1948.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that since that date the number of customers and the character of the area have changed? Will he try to take away all the red tape and let the people get on with the job?

Mr. Strachey: We should very much like to abolish the flour restriction scheme, and we shall do so the moment supplies of flour enable it to be done.

Subsidies

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food what sums on the food subsidy account during the past 12 months have been applied to home-produced supplies of food, Commonwealth and Empire supplies and foreign supplies respectively.

Mr. Strachey: If the subsidies on animal feedingstuffs are attributed to home production, the estimated total subsidy for the year to 31st March, 1949, can be analysed as follows:—Home production £280 million, or 58 per cent.; Commonwealth and Empire supplies £151 million, or 31 per cent.; Foreign supplies £53 million, or 11 per cent.

Purchases

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Food whether he is satisfied that adequate publicity has been given to the fact that our principal foodstuffs are being bought by experts in the food trade.

Mr. Strachey: The fact that our principal foodstuffs are bought by some of the leading experts in the food trades has


already been given in replies to Questions and in the course of debate, and has received considerable publicity in some sections of the Press; but it can always bear repetition, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity of repeating it.

Mr. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reply which was given by our mutual right hon. Friend on this subject last Monday was published in only two of the leading national newspapers on the following day? Will he take steps to publish this very interesting information as a "Food Fact" in every newspaper for the benefit of the nation?

Catering Establishments (Meat)

Mr. Daines: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now consider ordering a meatless day in all restaurants and public eating places.

Mr. Strachey: I think it is better to reduce the actual allowances of meat to catering establishments, and this we have already done.

Offences

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food to what extent his regulations render persons who consume rationed food illegally supplied liable to prosecution in the same way as the hotels and shopkeepers who provide it.

Mr. Strachey: People who consume food that others have obtained illegally are not thereby liable to prosecution.

Sir W. Smithers: If the people who supply the food illegally can be convicted, why should not the comrades who spent the weekend at Manor House, Shanklin, also have to go to prison?

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member is running rather ahead. This matter is sub judice at the moment.

Cheese Ration (Stokers)

Mr. George Ward: asked the Minister of Food whether he will extend the extra cheese ration to gas works stokers.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. Gas undertakings should be well able to provide canteen and packed meals services for their workers.

Mr. Ward: Is the Minister aware that many of these gas works undertakings have no canteens, and that it is almost impossible for the wives of the workers to send their husbands out with packed lunches to sustain them in this very exacting work?

Mr. Strachey: I think that the answer is to encourage by every means in our power the provision of canteens.

Mr. Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman do it?

Onions

Major Beamish: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that considerable quantities of Polish onions are being sold in this country at 6s. for a 50 lb. bag; how this price compares with the minimum price that British growers charge for onions; what representations he has received on this matter from British growers; and what remedial action he proposes.

Mr. Strachey: My information is that Polish onions are fetching 12s. a cwt. for medium sizes and 16s. a cwt. for the larger sizes, ex quay. The most recent wholesale prices for English onions range from 4s. to 16s. a cwt. The total quantity of onions imported from Poland since the beginning of this season is less than 2,500 tons. I have received no representations from growers recently about these Polish imports. I am not proposing any remedial action since I am glad to say that both English and Polish onions are now selling to the housewife at from 2d. a lb. instead of 4½d. a lb. under control.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has stated the total imports from Poland, may I ask whether it is a fact that in the coming year more onions are to be imported from Poland and other countries than the whole of the annual consumption of onions in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Strachey: Oh, no.

Mr. De la Bère: Why not do something about leeks as well.

Major Beamish: Is it still the right hon. Gentleman's policy to continue to buy food abroad at the cheapest possible price regardless of the effect on British agriculture?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. Certainly pot regardless of the effect and equally not regardless of the price, to the housewife.

Horseflesh (Retail Prices)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food what are the maximum retail prices fixed for horseflesh for human consumption; and if he is satisfied that housewives in London and elsewhere are not being charged more than these prices.

Mr. Strachey: Maximum retail prices of horseflesh for human consumption are 1s. per lb. for some cuts, and 8d. per lb. for others. All steps possible are being taken to prevent overcharging. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of any case of overcharging I will gladly have it investigated.

Mr. Hurd: Is the Minister aware that in many cases the price list is in very small type so that it can hardly be noticed, and in view of the cut in the ordinary meat ration is it proposed to put horseflesh on the ration?

Mr. Strachey: The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is, "No, Sir." In reply to the first part, I agree that there is difficulty of enforcement here, but we must do our best.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the selling prices of horses for slaughter makes it virtually impossible to sell horsemeat at the controlled price?

Dutch Meat Products

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food what quantities of meat and meat products, respectively, and of what values, he has agreed to buy under the Anglo-Netherlands Trade Agreement, 1949.

Mr. Strachey: We have agreed the following import quotas for meat products from the Netherlands in 1949: canned meat and sausages, cooked sausages, chicken paste and salami, to the value of £1,500,000; game and rabbits to the value of £.60,000; and poultry to the value of £100,000. I cannot estimate the tonnages because of the different prices for the various foods. Poultry and rabbits are bought by the Ministry of Food and the other items

are imported by private traders under licence. We were not offered any carcase meat.

Potatoes (Licences)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food how many potato grower-salesmen's licences have been issued each year since potato control licensing regulations were introduced by his Department; and how many such licences have been issued each month during the past year.

Mr. Strachey: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

The numbers of grower-salesman licences issued each year since August, 1942, when permanent licences were first introduced, are as follows:


1st August-31st December, 1942
…
10,054


1943
…
824


1944
…
428


1945
…
204


1946
…
175


1947
…
160


1948
…
982


1st January-31st March, 1949
…
104

The numbers issued in each of the last 12 months were:


1948


April
…
7


May
…
5


June
…
195


July
…
213


August
…
159


September
…
109


October
…
63


November
…
105


December
…
77


1949


January
…
55


February
…
32


March
…
17

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food how many ware potato merchants' licences have been issued to date; and how many have been issued each month during the last 12 months.

Mr. Strachey: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman persisting in his former policy of keeping the granting of these licences to the minimum?

Mr. Strachey: We are still having to license potato merchants. During the present period of control I am afraid that that is inevitable.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman keeping to the minimum the number of licences he grants?

Mr. Strachey: I am not quite clear what the hon. and gallant Member means by that, but we are keeping it to the figure we think is a proper one in existing circumstances.

Major Legge-Bourke: Has the right hon. Gentleman not changed his policy in regard to the granting of these licences? According to my information he has been granting more lately.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I do not think there is any change. We are granting the ones which it seems proper to grant in present circumstances.

Following is the table:

4,140 ware potato merchants' licences had been issued up to 31st March, 1949, and of this number 3,634 are now in force. The numbers issued each month during the last 12 months were as follows:


1948


April
…
3


May
…
1


June
…
21


July
…
30


August
…
9


September
…
17


October
…
13


November
…
21


December
…
25


1949


January
…
10


February
…
17


March
…
22

Feedingstuffs

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food with which countries of the sterling area he is now negotiating for the purchase of feedingstuffs to be imported into this country.

Mr. Strachey: Australia is the only significant supplier within the sterling area of cereal feedingstuffs. We have bought their exportable surplus of barley and oats, and have just fixed a price for the sorghums which will be available from the first crop of the Overseas Food Corporation's Queensland scheme this year.

Mr. Turton: Can the Minister say what is the quantity of barley and oats he has just bought from Australia?

Mr. Strachey: We do not yet know what their exportable surplus will be in this crop year.

Oral Answers to Questions — PIG FEEDINGSTUFFS

Mr. William Paling: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that it is impossible to get sufficient pig feedingstuffs from non-dollar sources, he will discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the advisability of setting dollars aside for this purpose with a view to stimulating the desire in the country to implement bacon and pork supplies.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave to the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) on 31st March.

Mr. Paling: The Prime Minister is not unaware of the need for producing more meat in this country, and would not the spending of dollars on feedingstuffs be a most valuable investment, the return from which would be quick and for the benefit of this country?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Member will study the reply given by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, which will give him a very full answer.

Mr. Frank Byers: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us have studied that reply; is he not also aware that the Economic Survey for 1947 specifically stated that £1,000 worth of feedingstuffs would save the import of £2,000 worth of finished products, and in those circumstances is it not wise now to consider spending dollars on feedingstuffs instead of on bacon, ham and eggs?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply. The hon. Member will realise that feedingstuffs will not provide bacon next week.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the pledge given by the Lord President of the Council, in 1947, that if need be, dollars would be spent on feedingstuffs?

Mr. Gerald Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, if he considers it economic to buy raw materials for other industries, it is not an economic proposition to buy raw materials for the agricultural industry?

The Prime Minister: It is economic, and we are buying a great deal; it is a question of the amount.

Mr. De la Bère: It is No. 1 priority.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR OFFICE (NAME)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Prime Minister whether he will change the name of the War Office to the Army Office, and so indicate its real function more accurately.

The Prime Minister: This change would involve legislation, which might well be controversial. In view of the pressure of more important legislation, I think there is no immediate need for any change.

Mr. Henry Strauss: If the principle suggested in this Question were adopted, would it not be necessary to re-name the Ministry of Food?

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (AGE)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Attorney-General whether it is his policy not to appoint justices of the peace over the age of 60 years; and whether he gives special consideration in the case of a person who, although turned 60, has special qualifications for an appointment, such as a barrister or solicitor.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is responsible for the appointment of justices of the peace, is reluctant to appoint persons to a commission for the first time if they have reached the age of 60, except where they possess special legal qualifications.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Attorney-General aware that I fared much better with the Lord Chancellor; that I have taken his advice and written to the Lord Chancellor, who has now given way; and may I ask him not to send in a bill for a fee for the advice he gave me?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTEMPT OF COURT (PROCEEDINGS)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Attorney-General why the recent proceedings against a newspaper for contempt of court were not undertaken by the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than at the instance and expense of a private individual; and whether, to avoid the odium and possible injustice

which may attend private prosecutions in such cases, he will give an assurance that in future matters savouring of contempt in similar circumstances will be considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to proceedings at the public expense.

The Attorney-General: Under the existing law, it is the right of a private individual to initiate proceedings for contempt of court if he is so advised. Immediately following the publication to which the hon. Member refers, the Director of Public Prosecutions was informed by the legal advisers of the accused person to whom the alleged contempt referred that they were proposing to institute proceedings in respect of it on behalf of their client, and asking for the Director's assistance in so doing, which he accordingly gave them. The Director of Public Prosecutions is always prepared to consider action in regard to any question of contempt relating to criminal proceedings which is brought to his notice, or of which he becomes aware, and the assurance for which I am asked is already carried out in practice.

Mr. Hogg: Without impugning in any way the desirability of allowing to private individuals the right to have their wrongs redressed, may I ask whether it would not be far better in cases of this kind if the assertion of the public principle involved were undertaken by the public authority, rather than left to the advisers of one who is under trial on a serious charge and who must be to some extent influenced by his position?

The Attorney-General: The matter is not altogether an easy one. Under the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1908, the Director of Public Prosecutions may take over the conduct of criminal proceedings initiated by a private prosecutor, and assuming proceedings for contempt are within that Act—as I think myself they are—the Director would in a proper case be entitled to take them over. But, as the hon. Member will appreciate, proceedings for contempt may prejudice the accused person to whom the contempt is related by attracting further publicity to the matter; therefore, where proceedings for contempt are initiated by the advisers of that accused person, who know how best to deal with the matter in the way least prejudicial to what is


likely to be the eventual line of defence, the Director has to exercise great discretion in intervention.

Mr. Blackburn: Is it not the fact that in a case of this kind a contribution towards the taxed costs of the aggrieved party is, in fact, made by the Crown, which partially meets the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg)?

The Attorney-General: Well, no. In this case an order for costs was made, and the costs will be recovered against those who were found guilty of contempt.

Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether it is the case, as has been stated, that the expenses in these proceedings are, in fact, being borne by another newspaper?

The Attorney-General: I understand that to be the fact, but my Department is not officially concerned with that.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Bovine Tuberculosis (Consultations)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has completed his consultations with the farming organisations and the veterinary profession on the arrangements to be made for the systematic eradication of bovine tuberculosis and the establishment of clean areas; and when he will put such a scheme into operation.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): No, Sir. While discussions with the interests concerned show that there are no wide differences of view as to the main principles on which an area eradication plan should be based, a few difficult questions remain as regards the financial provision of such a plan. I hope, however, that these may be resolved in the near future. Meanwhile, substantial progress continues to be made under the voluntary Tuberculosis (Attested Herds) Scheme, which now includes nearly a million and a half cattle.

Mr. Hurd: Is the Minister remembering that these consultations have gone on for very many months; and does he not agree that to get an effective scheme for irradicating bovine tuberculosis we must have co-ordination which can only be done through his Department?

Mr. Williams: I fully appreciate that, and I hope the hon. Member will not forget the evidence side of determining an eradication area.

Fishmeal

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture what results he has had from his campaign to persuade fishermen to land whole fish instead of dumping heads and tails in the sea.

Mr. T. Williams: There has been no such campaign. At one time maximum price schedules laid down by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food had the effect of encouraging the landing of headless fish, but that was corrected last November, and I feel that it would be difficult to justify taking any further steps at the present time in view of the need to land maximum quantities of edible fish.

Mr. G. Williams: Is the Minister aware that I understood he was carrying on a campaign; and, as he says he is not, will he consider carrying on a very strenuous campaign, as at the present time fishmeal is of the utmost importance for rearing pigs?

Mr. T. Williams: I fully agree with the hon. Member that fishmeal is of some importance, but while there is a shortage of other kinds of food, the maximum quantity of edible fish is also a grave necessity.

Mr. D. Marshall: Is the right hon. Gentleman stating that since the order was altered, there has, in fact, been no change at all?

Mr. T. Williams: Well, perhaps a change, but a change for the worse from the point of view of fishmeal.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Serum)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider making experiments in this country with the treatment of foot-and-mouth disease by a serum vaccination in view of the success achieved by the French Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. T. Williams: Tests with serum have been carried out in this country and its value in controlling outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease is well understood. The use of the serum would not, however, be entirely effective in preventing


outbreaks or the spread of the disease, and I am satisfied that the present eradication policy is the best and most economical in the circumstances of this country.

Mr. De la Bère: Can we have an assurance from the Minister that research will be made into this all-important matter, in view of the success that has attended this treatment in France?

Mr. Williams: Perhaps it would not be out of place if I were to tell the House that the success achieved by the French Ministry of Agriculture may be measured by the fact that during January, 1949—the last month for which we have figures—there were 1,773 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in France; in this country, we have had 24 outbreaks in the last 15 months.

Mr. M. Philips Price: Is it not possible for farmers to get hold of this serum so that they can try it out voluntarily?

Mr. Williams: I should want notice of that question.

Potato Acreage

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture what information he has about the acreage which farmers propose to allocate for potatoes for the coming season.

Mr. T. Williams: An inquiry of the county agricultural executive committees in January suggested that the potato acreage in England and Wales might fall short of the target by about 5 per cent. Since then deliveries of seed potatoes from Scotland and Ireland to English merchants—which give a rough indication of prospective acreage—have improved and are now up to the total for the same date last year.

Mr. Philips Price: Is the Minister aware that the difficulty of disposing of this year's crop of ware potatoes may militate against the planting of the desired acreage this year; and will he take steps to assure farmers that if they do grow the required acreage they will be disposed of this year better than they were last year?

Mr. Williams: We not only give that guarantee, but the price they shall receive has already been fixed.

Production

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the printing of a short message from him which could be posted up on farms throughout the country asking farmers and their staffs to step up food production to the utmost for the good of the nation.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. I am satisfied that the diverse means already employed, not only for asking farmers to step up production but also to advise them on the methods by which they can do so, are adequate.

Captain Crookshank: Is the right hon. Gentleman's refusal due to the difficulty he finds in devising a suitable message for onion and tomato growers?

South Downs (Public Rights)

Major Beamish: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that large areas of the South Downs have been handed to the East or West Sussex Agricultural Committees for restoration pending derequisitioning, and that there is public anxiety at the resulting interference with public rights of way and other public rights in this area; and if he will make a statement on this matter.

Mr. T. Williams: I am satisfied that the East and West Sussex Agricultural Executive Committees do all they can to avoid interfering with public rights on and over the South Downs so far as that is consistent with the essential work of cultivation during the period before the land is derequisitioned.

Major Beamish: Is the Minister doing his best to speed up handing this land back to its rightful owners; and if I give him details of serious interference with rights of way—interference such as no private landlord would dare to make—will he look carefully into each case and do his best to put these things right?

Mr. Williams: I shall be very happy to look at whatever information the hon. Member cares to send along. Perhaps I ought to tell him and the House that the Society of Sussex Downsmen state in their 1947 Report:
The valuable work that is being under-taken by the East and West Sussex County Committees unfortunately led to complaints


to the Society concerning bridle roads and footpaths. Their task is a very difficult one, and from interviews between representatives of the Committee and the Society it is obvious that they do respect the public rights, and do all in their power to avoid damage to bridal roads and footpaths.

Major Beamish: Will the Minister be kind enough to look at the Society's 1948 Report, which he will find tells a very different story indeed?

Mr. Williams: Perhaps I must bring my information up to date.

Oral Answers to Questions — HORSES, EXPORT AND SLAUGHTER (COMMITTEE)

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has now completed his consideration of the value under which a horse may not be exported from this country, and if, to prevent the export of horses for butchery, he will introduce legislation to raise the amounts under the Exportation of Horses Act, 1937, to £80 for heavy draft horses, £60 for tanners and £10 for asses.

Mr. T. Williams: It has now been decided, as announced in the House on 21st March, to set up a committee to inquire into questions concerning the slaughter of and traffic in horses. I think it desirable that this matter should be considered in the light of their report.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now able to announce the names of the committee which is to inquire into the slaughter of horses, and the scope of the inquiry.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now announce the terms of reference and the names of the members of the committee he is setting up to inquire into the traffic in horses to Belgium and elsewhere.

Mr. T. Williams: The terms of reference to the committee will be to inquire into

(1) the extent of the export trade in horses for (a) work and (b) slaughter and the considerations affecting the continuance of the trade for either purpose;
(2) the extent of the practice of slaughtering horses for food for human and animal consumption in this country; and the considerations affecting the continuance of the practice;

(3) the effect of the export and slaughter of horses on the supply of working horses in this country;
(4) the desirability or otherwise of encouraging the breeding of horses for slaughter;
(5) the statutory provisions designed to prevent unnecessary suffering by horses while being transported by air, rail, road or sea and in the slaughter-houses; whether such provisions are adequate and whether they are properly enforced; and to make recommendations.

I am glad to say that the Earl of Rosebery has consented to be the chairman of the committee. The names of the other members will be announced as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOODLANDS DEDICATION SCHEME

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many owners of woodlands in England and Wales have dedicated their woods; what acreage this represents; and whether he has any information on the numbers and acreage which are in process of dedication.

Mr. T. Williams: Dedication covenants have been completed in respect of five estates in England and Wales, involving 3,313 acres; approximately 85,000 acres of woodlands on 141 other estates are in process of being dedicated.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEEL AND TIMBER

Mr. Haire: asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury how much steel is now allocated to the building, mining and railway wagon industries for the manufacture of commodities which were made of timber before the war.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I am afraid that information in the form sought by the hon. Member is not available.

Mr. Haire: Now that timber is more plentiful, would it not be advisable to stop this wasteful use of steel, and direct it into the export trade?

Mr. Jay: I agree that there is need for re-examination of this problem. We are making a thorough examination of the possibilities of substitution between steel and timber and other relevant materials.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL OIL (SUPPLIES)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will publish a priority list for new fuel oil installations.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Sharp), on 31st March.

Mr. Erroll: As that reply gave no information about the setting up of priority lists, which would thereby avoid an appearance of discrimination, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider this proposal, which would have wide support among industrial and domestic users?

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think there can be any question of setting up priority lists on the basis of different industries, because the position in each industry considerably differs. We have to judge each firm on the principles explained in my previous answer.

BILL PRESENTED

MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BOARD CONFIRMATION (Special Procedure)

"to confirm, in accordance with the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, an order of the Minister of Health under the Water Act, 1945, relating to Mid-Northamptonshire."

Presented by Mr. Bevan.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: On a point of Order. As this is the first time, Sir, that a Bill of this nature has been introduced into the House against the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee, would it be in Order to move that the Bill be not now considered?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no notice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, but I am certain that it would not be in Order to move anything of that kind now. This merely relates to the presentation of the Bill. I asked what date it should be taken into consideration, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point can be considered on that date. At the moment, there can be no point of Order on the Bill.
Bill ordered (under subsection (4) of Section 6 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945) to be considered upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MARKETING [MONEY] (No. 2)

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 to 1933, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable, out of moneys so provided, under subsection (5) of Section sixteen of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, in respect of the remuneration of the members of, or of the expenses of, commissions or committees, which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session which applies the said Section sixteen to Agricultural Marketing Re-organisation Commissions for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for England and Northern Ireland and for Scotland and Northern Ireland or enables committees of investigation to consist of a chairman and five members (over and above any additional members appointed when the committee are considering a scheme applicable to Northern Ireland or any part of Northern/quote Ireland).

Resolution agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee) read.

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 5, line 21; Clause 18, page 14, line 37, line 38, line 41 and line 42; and Clause 19, page 16, line 12 and line 14, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Thomas Williams.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Clause 3.—(SAVING FOR, AND AMENDMENTS OF, S. 9 OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT.)

3.26 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move, in page 5, line 21, at the end, to add:
(3) In paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of the said section nine (which requires that committees of investigation shall consist of a chairman and four other members) for the word "four," there shall be substituted the words "either four or five.
Hon. Members who have been following this Bill will recall that I said on

Second Reading that there were many questions to be dealt with by a committee of investigation; that it and the Commission on Monopolies and Restrictive Practices would be more or less identical, and that an overlap in membership would be necessary so that both of them might pursue a common policy. For this purpose we expect to invite the President of the Board of Trade to nominate one member for any committee of investigation. We more or less know the standard for committees of investigation—a legal chairman, and four members, of whom one would be a trade unionist, one an accountant, one an economist and one a business man.
I imagine that in most cases the representative selected by the President of the Board of Trade would fit into that scheme of things. There may however be the odd case in which that particular representative of the Monopolies Commission would not fulfil any one of the four designations, and in that case we should require a fifth. The Money Resolution was agreed to the other evening without a Debate. The Amendments to Clauses 3, 18 and 19 are merely to fit the Bill into that Money Resolution. There is no change in principle whatsoever, and we merely cover ourselves in case the committee of investigation should consist of six rather than five members.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: My hon. Friends on this side of the Committee will agree to the Minister's suggestion. He mentioned six members instead of five, but did he not mean four instead of five?

Mr. Williams: Six instead of five including the chairman.

Sir T. Dugdale: We are pleased to note that it is the intention of the Government to maintain the balance of the committee of investigation as heretofore. I take it from what the Minister has said that it will not inevitably mean that there will be an additional member in every case, but only when the circumstances deem it advisable.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Williams indicated assent.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18.—(EXTENSION OF PRINCIPAL ACT TO NORTHERN IRELAND.)

Amendments made: In page 14, line 37, leave out "section fifteen of."

In line 38, after "Act," insert:
relating to Agricultural Marketing Reorganization Commissions.

In line 41, leave out "the said section fifteen," and insert:
section fifteen of the principal Act.

In line 42, after "subsections," insert:
and in the provisions of the principal Act relating to Agricultural Marketing Re-organization Commissions, as applied by the last preceding subsection."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.)

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 16, line 12, to leave out:
constituted or appointed under that Act.
The only point about this is that for the first time there is the possibility of an Agricultural Marketing Re-organisation Commission for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which could operate in England and Northern Ireland or in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The same sort of a procedure shall apply to it as in the case of the committee of investigation.

Sir T. Dugdale: There is one point which requires clarification. On previous stages of the Bill the Minister told us that there have been schemes in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom before. What this Clause does is to enable the Minister to have a combined new scheme, but he could not under this legislation, have a scheme for Northern Ireland alone. Am I right?

Mr. Williams: That is perfectly true.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 14, leave out from "as," to "committees," in line 16, and insert:
applies the said section sixteen to Agricultural Marketing Re-organisation Commissions for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for England and Northern Ireland and for Scotland and Northern Ireland, extends the functions of consumers committees, committees of investigation and Agricultural Marketing Facilities Committees, enables committees of investigation to consist of a chairman and five

members or requires that when consumers committees, committees of investigation or Agricultural Marketing Facilities.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal) considered.

New Clause.—(PENALTIES.)

(1) Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act or in any other Act no board shall have power to impose any penalty.

(2) If any registered producer wilfully fails to comply with any provision of a marketing scheme under the principal Act or the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and in addition such amount as will, in the opinion of the court, secure that the offender derives no benefit from the offence.—[Mr. Hopkin Morris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I beg to move: "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this new Clause can only be understood if one looks at Clause 5 of this Bill, which provides that if a producer commits any offence he may be summoned before a disciplinary board which can impose what penalty it thinks fit. There is no provision for the amount of penalty under this Bill, and the House hands over to a committee set up by itself, the power to impose a penalty without any control over it. This new Clause will provide instead, that wherever an offence has been committed by a producer, he shall be dealt with in the ordinary way by the procedure of the courts. In other words, the House will not hand that power over to anyone else at all, but will retain it in its own hand.
This disciplinary committee presumably will meet in London. The offence may be committed in the North of England or West Wales, but the offender will have to attend with his witnesses before the disciplinary committee here. It has always been one of the principles of our justice that a man shall be tried near his home and shall not be put to unnecessary cost, as would be the case if he had to come to London. The cost may become very substantial especially if he were acquitted. He is mulcted in this heavy undertaking of bringing most


of the witnesses to London, but if the ordinary procedure were followed, he would be tried before the magistrate in proper form.
It might be argued by the Minister that Clause 5 is an improvement upon the principal Act because in the last resort, the aggrieved person can appeal to the courts. That is true, but the fact that it is an improvement upon the principal Act does not justify the principal Act. In my submission the principal Act was wrong, and this new Clause will provide for the reversal of the principle that was followed in that Act. I move this Amendment with even greater confidence, because the principle I am enunciating had a most distinguished champion in the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am putting the argument before the House in exactly the same circumstances and for exactly the same purpose as did the Chancellor in 1938. I hope that the influence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer may carry weight with the Minister of Agriculture, and that he will accept this new Clause, especially the principle which the present Chancellor championed so determinedly in 1938.

Mr. Beechman: I beg to second the Motion.
An important point of principle is involved, first as to whether these boards should be given powers of imposing penalties and whether such powers ought not to be left in the hands of our courts; secondly, there is here a disciplinary committee which has power not only to impose penalties but to impose an additional penalty, as it were, composed of losses such as it may think fit to pronounce as having occurred. Nobody knows what the evidence will be or how it will be given, and the public will not know how the proceedings were conducted or how they terminated. For those reasons I very strongly support the proposal. It is a most serious thing that we should go in the direction of giving boards of all sorts vague powers of condemning their own fellow citizens on trials of the nature of which nobody can be sure.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): There could quite easily be some little misunderstanding about this

situation. I will first make the point which the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) rather assumed I would make, namely, that this provision for the boards to discipline their own members has existed for 18 years. What we propose to do is to apply the recommendations of the appropriate committee which brought the matter under independent review. To that extent we are bringing the practice into line with modern thought. So far as I know there has been no great dissatisfaction with the the operation of what has been the law for 18 years. We are now trying to deal with it in accordance with the recommendations of the Falmouth Committee.
The hon. and learned Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) said that it was wrong to give the boards these powers. We are not giving the boards any powers. We are, in fact, limiting somewhat the powers which they have had. I am quite happy to defend this on the rights of the case, apart from little quibbles like that. After all, a marketing board is an exercise in self-discipline and self-government by a group of people having a common function to perform, that of producing and marketing their produce. The principle is one of industrial self-government. It seems to me if that is so—this is where the argument of those who propose the Clause falls down—that the offence is not an offence against society at large, punishable as a penal offence in a court of summary jurisdiction, but an offence against his own board by one of a body which has been given certain powers to govern itself. It is an offence against self-government by one of the group.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: If that is so, why is statutory authority needed?

Mr. Brown: Because the whole scheme needs statutory authority. We say to these folk that if they will engage—we do not compel them—in this act of industrial self-government, we shall give them certain statutory powers so that the scheme shall not be sabotaged or torpedoed by an unco-operative minority. That is the reason for voluntary powers. The scheme does not operate unless in the first place there is a voluntary desire by an overwhelming majority of the people concerned to engage in it. It


therefore seems to me right that any offence should be tried by the fellow producers who are the people against whom the offence is committed. That has been the view of everybody up to now. This is not peculiar to this board. It applies to analogous bodies such as trade and professional associations who may try members who depart from the accepted standards.
If we are to pursue the line that anyone who offends against the accepted canons of conduct of the scheme, must be taken into a court of summary jurisdiction and must go through the business of a public hearing of his case, then, if he is found guilty and has the fact published abroad that he has a penal conviction against him, a lot more harm may be done to him than if we leave things as they are. I appreciate what is behind the new Clause but I hope that after this explanation, the hon. and learned Member will not feel it necessary to press it.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Frank Byers: I am disappointed at the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, although I rather expected it because it is the same speech that was made by the Conservative Minister of Agriculture when this was last debated in 1938. I have been reading that speech in HANSARD with some interest.

Mr. Brown: I wrote it for him!

Mr. Byers: In those days the Labour Party seemed to be giving full support to this principle. I do not know where the Minister of Agriculture was when the Division took place, but the Home Secretary was in the Division Lobby in support of this Clause. I was not here then but Mr. Dingle Foot, who put this forward, had the very able support of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hon. Members opposite ought to take note of what he said. He said:
It therefore seems to us to be essential, if justice is to be done, that these matters should be dealt with in the local courts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1938; Vol. 334, c. 563.]
Surely it will not be suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the sort of person who does not weigh his words very carefully. He made a long speech about this. He gave conclusive proof of

how dangerous it was to give administrative bodies of this sort the right to fine people under their jurisdiction.
This matter cannot easily be brushed aside. It is a matter of principle. I do not think it can be suggested that offences created by statute are not offences against society. If this House makes laws and provides penalties and those laws are broken, the offences committed are offences against society. If it is not to be an offence against society, there should be no statutory authority for setting up a body to penalise people and to force them to pay fines. There is statutory authority here for the levying and recovery of fines. The fact that this has been going on for 18 years is no reason why we should not re-examine the principle. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right when he said in that speech that we cannot get essential justice if we allow these administrative bodies to usurp the powers of the court.
One of the great points made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke in 1937 was that in these disciplinary bodies no provision is made for the body to keep to any rules of evidence. Clause 5 (3) says:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring or enabling a scheme to provide for the taking of evidence on oath at any hearing by the disciplinary committee of a board.
That was the very point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other hon. Members, including Lady Astor. They pointed out that the absence of rules of evidence was a very unfair thing for the accused person. I say nothing against the Milk Marketing Board and other boards, but it has been the experience of persons who have appeared before such bodies that statements have been admitted which would never have been accepted in a court of summary jurisdiction. There is hearsay evidence, there are statements extracted by inspectors of the board which, if they had been extracted by police inspectors, would never have been allowed in a court of summary jurisdiction.
I believe that if this goes through without a serious reconsideration of the basic principle, the Minister—unwittingly perhaps, because I do not think enough consideration has been given to it—will place a serious burden particularly upon the small producers. That point was


made in 1937, and it ought to be made again today. I believe that the costs of this tribunal will be higher because it will be impossible to have the tribunal at any spot which will be convenient for the number of people who have to appear before it. The Minister may say, "For Devon and Cornwall we shall have the disciplinary committee sitting at Exeter." That may be so, but it is very inconvenient for the people in North Cornwall, in St. Ives and other places. If, when they get there they discover they want to call a witness, they will then have to go to the added expense of asking for an adjournment in order to call the cowman or foreman from their farm and bring him there.
The whole basis of British justice has been to bring justice to the people. That was why judges were sent out on assize. That is why in recent divorce arrangements we have had Commissioners going round the country. I believe we are abrogating an important principle of British justice. I shall not press this Clause if the Minister will give me an assurance that he will give serious reconsideration to the principle. I know him to be a fair-minded person and he has other stages of this Bill where it can be included. I believe we are going along the wrong road and that we have been going along it for 18 years. Therefore I ask the Minister to reconsider this and say he will accept the principle; otherwise we shall divide the House. I do not mind how much or how little support we shall get. The principle is important and we intend to vindicate it.

Captain Crookshank: I must confess that I have not spent the week-end raking through HANSARD to see what took place in 1938, but we paid some attention to this matter during the Committee stage of this Bill, and my view is that what is in the Bill is the right way of handling this problem, and I think I carry all my hon. and right hon. Friends with me in that point of view. Like the Parliamentary Secretary, we take the view that if there are infringements against a marketing scheme, they are not ordinary offences against the law of the land. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, one has to look at the origins of a marketing scheme, and how it comes into being. It is not forced on the industry by the Ministry; it is a coming together of certain producers who want

a marketing scheme and, having agreed upon one, they are then prepared to agree to the rules, the framework within which they shall operate. As the Minister said, there are other organisations, from the Jockey Club downwards—

Mr. Royle: Upwards.

Captain Crookshank: —who organise themselves on those lines and manage their affairs satisfactorily, and I do not see why this should be considered to be different. The members of a club come together for some purpose, social, sporting or otherwise, and abide by the rules. If anybody breaks the rules of the club, it is not a necessary result that they shall be hauled up before the petty sessions court.

Mr. Byers: But in the case the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is citing, people can leave the club without jeopardising their livelihood, and in this case, if a man leaves the club, his livelihood is gone, so it is not a correct analogy.

Captain Crookshank: There are pretty good safeguards laid down in this Bill against his leaving the club, and the procedure is covered by the disciplinary committees. I agree with one point made by the hon. Gentleman, and if he looks at the Order Paper he will see that my hon. Friends have an Amendment down dealing with it. We take the view that it would be desirable for these committees to meet as near as possible to where the alleged infringement had taken place, but we shall discuss that later on if, as I understand is the case, that Amendment is to be called. On the general issue, in this sphere of organisation I think it is right that the people concerned should discipline themselves, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, contrary to what has been the case, the disciplinary committee has a legal chairman now. That is some advance, I take it, from his point of view. If this matter is taken to a Division, I, for my part, shall support the Government.

Mrs. Leah Manning: It is always difficult, when one gets up against these rigid Liberal principles to discuss them on other than a philosophical basis, but this is not a matter that can be discussed in that way. One can have a sin or an offence against society at large, in


conjunction with this Clause, although for the time being it would benefit society. For instance, suppose the group has decided on a certain price for its commodities. Is anyone to be allowed to go outside it and sell at cut prices? That, for the time being, might be a great advantage to society but it would be a great disadvantage to the marketing board. For such an offence against the group one could not let people be taken into a penal court.

Mr. Byers: People are taken into courts of summary jurisdiction by the Ministry of Food today for selling at too high prices. It is the same principle.

Mrs. Manning: And at too low prices as well, but the Ministry of Food has those powers under exceptional circumstances. We hope these marketing groups will go on as part of the general law of the land long after the Minister of Food has the right to say at what prices things shall be bought or sold. I do not want to see the Ministry of Food abolished, but we do not expect its powers with regard to prices to continue during normal times.
To suggest that people who are part and parcel of a producers' board should be brought before a penal court for an offence against the group, is something which cannot be contemplated by a producers' marketing board any more than it would be considered by a trade union, or by doctors or lawyers, when any member of their organisation had committed some offence against themselves as a group. I am a member of the disciplinary committee of my, own union, and I cannot imagine that we should be expected to take a teacher who had offended against some professional code of conduct before a penal court or, when there is a trial of a teacher before a disciplinary committee of his own union, to have all the paraphernalia with regard to evidence and the taking of oaths which one would have in a court.

Mr. Byers: Can the hon. Lady fine them?

Mrs. Manning: We can do what is much worse than fine them; we can turn them out of the union, and that for many people, especially for doctors—[An HON. MEMBER: "And lawyers."]—and for lawyers, is much more serious than the

fine which would be imposed under this Clause. I hope that my hon. Friends opposite will realise that this is in the best interests of the group, that society is not being sinned against by anything that can be done by this group, and that we shall leave it as it is.

Mr. Coldrick: Does the hon. Lady not appreciate that there is a marked difference between an organisation like the National Union of Teachers which prescribes its own rules, and then decides to fine some one who breaks them, and any organisation coming to this House, asking us to decide what the offence shall be, and then giving them the power to fine? There is a vital difference in the principle.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: I take up only one sentence of the speech of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers). He said that this would cast a burden on the producers. Speaking as a producer, I think it is the reverse. The last thing a producer wants is to go before any organisation which does not know everything that is to be known about the subject. If he goes before representatives who have been chosen to serve upon such a committee particularly for their skill and experience, the producer will feel that he will get proper justice. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) made a point about the breeding societies. Anybody who happens to be engaged in livestock breeding, will know that an offender against the rules of a breeding society is not taken before a court of summary jurisdiction but before the council of the society. I have served on such a council myself and I know how expert a body it was. It was chosen from all over the country, and consisted of people who were experts in their own subject. I know of no producer or breeder who would not rather go before that tribunal than before any court.
Secondly, I do not see why such an offender should be dragged into the light of publicity for an offence which would not amount to more than a few pounds in value. That is why I think that this reference to the court might be brought down to a lower level, and why I suggested on the Committee stage that


it might come down to the sheriff court in Scotland, for such very small offences.

Mr. Byers: Why bring it to London?

Mr. Snadden: The Proposed new Clause is drawing this matter out to extreme exaggeration, and I hope that the Minister will resist it.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: An offence of this kind is in a category quite different from those of a member of a club or someone who offends against a society. It does not fit into either of those categories. We all have sympathy with anybody who stands up and says: "I want justice for a society," but this matter is in quite a separate category. I should like to say a word as a producer of milk. The great bulk of the membership of the Milk Marketing Board take very few matters to court. They know that they are not like a club. They never go to meetings. The only thing they do is to send the milk in every morning, as I do. Undoubtedly, members of an organisation like that occasionally offend against the rules of the organisation, and they certainly ought to be fined or punished for such offences as sending bad milk into the central depot. At present, such offences are tried by the board, and we see the results in the monthly organ of the Milk Marketing Board. They are all down there, with lists of the people who have offended and their addresses. That system has not created an uproar among the producers. The great bulk of milk producers are men who do not know very much about law. They are mostly small men. with 10, 15 or 20 cows.
It is necessary for the Minister to consider whether the method of producing evidence is as good as it ought to be. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Byers) made a good point about it. I do not think that the method of producing evidence is altogether satisfactory. I do not know what the answer is. I have not yet been up before the board myself. Perhaps I may know later on, if ever I am brought before it. I understand that there have been cases where men have not been able to put forward

evidence in support of their cases as they should have been. Perhaps the Minister would accept the suggestion and have another look at this matter in order to ensure, within the framework of the scheme, that justice is done.

Mr. G. Brown: By leave of the House, I should like to say a word or two in reply to the points that have been made and to enable hon. Members to be clear on them. On the question of where the committee will sit, the answer is that we are putting into effect some provisions of the Falmouth Committee and reducing this body from the whole board to a small committee with a legal chairman. That will make it much more possible than it used to be, for the committee to sit where, or near to where, the infringement has been committed. The question of bringing it to London will therefore no longer automatically arise, if ever it did. It will be much easier for the disciplinary committee to go near to where the party concerned lives. It will' be for the committee to decide.
On the question of how we get evidence, there is another Amendment on the Order Paper to give the chairman, who is now to be a legal chairman, power to take evidence on oath. I feel that we have probably covered that point. On the general question of disciplinary powers, the Falmouth Committee considered this matter at very great length, and we now have the benefit of their views. On this point, their report states:
The transfer of the penal duties of the boards to the courts of summary jurisdiction would, in these respects, have serious practical disadvantages with no comparable compensatory benefits for producers.
An hon. Member spoke of the costs of defending a case. Those costs would obviously be very much greater before a court of summary jurisdiction. There is the additional provision that if a producer feels that the disciplinary board has been unfair or improper, he can still insist upon the matter being taken to arbitration.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 2; Noes, 228.

Division No. 93.]
AYES
[4.10 p.m.


Beechman, N. A.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Byers and Mr. Hopkin Morris.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Foot, M. M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Parker, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Attewell, H. C.
Gibbins, J.
Pearl, T. F.


Austin, H. Lewis
Glanville, J. E. (Consort)
Popplewell, E.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Bacon, Miss A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Baldwin, A. E
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Price, M. Philips


Balfour, A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Barstow, P. G.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Barton, C.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Raikes, H. V.


Battley, J. R.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Baxter, A. B.
Harrison, J.
Ranger, J.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Haworth, J.
Reeves, J.


Benson, G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Berry, H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hollis, M. C.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Blackburn, A. R.
Holman, P.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)


Bower, N.
Houghton, A. L. N. D.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Royle, C.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pI. Exch'ge)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hurd, A.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Shurmer, P.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Burden, T. W.
Jay, D. P. T.
Skinnard, F. W.


Callaghan, James
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jenkins, R. H.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Challen, C.
Keenan, W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Kinky, J.
Snadden, W. M.


Channon, H.
Langford-Holt, J.
Soskice, Rt. Han. Sir Frank


Chater, D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lever, N. H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Cluse, W. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Cobb, F. A.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Cocks, F. S.
Longden, F.
Studholme, H. G.


Collick, P.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas-Tooth, S. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
McAdam, W.
Swingler, S.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Symonds, A. L.


Crossman, R. H. S.
McFarlane, C. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Crowder, Capt. John E
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Testing, William


Daggar, G.
MoKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Daines, P.
McLeavy, F.
Tolley, L.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
MacLeod, J.
Turton, R. H.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Macpherson, T. (Rumford)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walkden, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Mann, Mrs. J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Dodds, N. N.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Warbey, W. N.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Drewe, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
West, D. G.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Wheatley, Rt. Hn.J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mellish R J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mellish, Sir J.
Willey, O, G. (Cleveland)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Duthie, W. S.
Monslow, W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Eccles, D. M.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, Rt. Hon T. (Don Valley)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Moyle, A.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Errol, F. J.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
York. C.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Patrick)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Odey, G. W.



Farthing, W. J.
Orbach, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. R. Adams

Clause 1.—(COMPOSITION OF MARKETING BOARDS.)

4.15 p.m.

Sir T. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out lines 12 and 13.
During the Committee stage we had considerable discussion on this point. The Amendment is designed to remove the upper limit to the number of members of the marketing boards. At the end of our discussion the Minister gave an assurance that he would consider the position before the present stage. We hope that, having given this matter consideration, he will be disposed to accept the Amendment. In case he is not so inclined, however, and without repeating the argument used in Committee, I shall explain briefly the reasons why we feel that the words which we seek to delete are unnecessary.
The Lucas Committee Report contained the recommendation that the maximum number of members of a marketing board should be 16. The Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, which governs the present position, contains no upper limit whatever. I imagine that such a matter is intended to be covered by Section 14 of that Act. In Committee, when he did not feel disposed to accept our Amendment, the Minister fell back on the argument that it would be better to adopt the practice of joint stock companies and make an upper limit of 24 unless the Minister thought otherwise. We on this side feel very strongly that there is no reason at all why there should be an upper limit in the hands of the Minister and not in the hands of any of the boards themselves. The mere fact of laying down in the statute an upper limit of 24 members might easily have the effect, which I am certain the House as a whole would not want, of making a great many of the marketing boards too large. It is much better, for the working of future marketing schemes, to leave the position as it is under the 1933 Act and, therefore, remove the upper limit altogether.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. T. Williams: As I promised hon. Members opposite during the Committee stage, I have reconsidered this matter of the upper limit in the number of members to represent any particular marketing

board. Whilst at that time there may have been some doubt about the wisdom of imposing an outside limit, the very latest scheme which has been submitted to my Department clearly indicates the necessity of fixing such a limit. As hon. Members are aware, the Lucas Committee recommended a limit of 16. We feel disposed to lift the limit from 16 to 24, but we hope that all marketing boards will not have 24 members merely because that is the upper limit.
If the tomato scheme had shown signs of a modest number of members, the argument of the hon. Baronet would have been quite good but, unfortunately, we find that in the first post-war scheme the suggested membership is no less than 30. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) suggested that a board of this kind required only a modest number. I think the Government are right in fixing a top limit of 24 with power to the Minister in exceptional cases—where, perhaps, there is a board for the whole of the United Kingdom, or a board dealing with a wide range of commodities—when the number of 24 could be exceeded.
There seems to be merit in the Clause as it stands and it certainly gives guidance to future marketing boards that they ought not to have large unwieldy memberships which would make their work difficult. Having reconsidered the matter, I think I should be unwise to accept the Amendment and to allow future boards to have as many members as they wished. The number of 24 is surely large enough and 24 is statutory guidance to those building up marketing schemes. They need not have 24, but may have 16, or even 10, if they feel so disposed. From the point of view of merit and statutory guidance, I prefer the Clause to be left as it is, and I hope the hon. Baronet will not press the Amendment.

Mr. York: I have been looking at the 1931 Act and, without that reference, on one point of the Minister's argument I was not able to make up my mind. He is basing his case on the fact that a marketing board, particularly a new board, might have too many members. But under the original Act the Minister is entitled to modify a scheme presented to him. If a modification, such as the number on a board, is required it would


be very much easier for the Minister to make that modification than to lay down hard and fast rules in an amending Act of Parliament. I ask the Minister whether it is advisable to put forward certain defined limits the effect of which must be to make the board think that the proper number of members for a scheme is the upper limit mentioned in the Bill. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) said, it is most undesirable that there should be a definite upper limit. Although I agree there should be a lower limit, I do not feel that the Minister has made out a case for an upper limit.

Mr. Turton (Thursk and Malton): I think the Minister made the case which we are putting from these benches. What we do not want to see is statutory guidance which will make the boards too large. I agree with the Lucas Committee Report that 16 should be the normal number, but if we put in a statutory provision which says that the board shall have not fewer than eight members and not more than 24, it will be assumed that 24 is to be the number, except in the case of a special trade such as the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board. I hope the Minister will look at this again. There is no great party difference about it. On both sides of the House we want the most efficient working so that produce is brought quickly from the producer to the consumer. If we embarrass the boards by these provisions as to upper limit, both sides will regret it. If this provision is left out, the Lucas Committee suggestion of 16 will be accepted; otherwise the number of 24 will be adopted.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from "appointment" to the end of line 20.
The effect of this Amendment would be to give the Minister a completely free choice of men or women whom he considers best suited to serve on the boards as Minister's nominees. We feel the Minister should not limit himself to people with specific qualifications or he will feel bound by the qualifications specified. There is evidence of that in the next Amendment in the name of the Minister, to insert at the end of line 20:

or as being specially conversant with the interests of consumers of the regulated product.
The important matter is to get a team which will work together, and when the Minister chooses his nominees he should choose men or women who will fit in with the team and strengthen it with broader experience than the producers or elected representatives have. They should not be representatives of sectional interests, although they may have experience of finance, commerce, or the organisation of workers.
It is a mistake to consider these nominees of the Minister as watchdogs of the public interest. That is where the Government are going wrong in this argument. The purpose of all marketing schemes is to serve the public interest; otherwise they would not be tolerated in a free democratic community. It is wrong to contemplate that there can be two camps within a board. We know from experience of producers' marketing boards that they themselves employ competent men with experience of commerce and finance and, indeed, of the co-operative distribution of farm produce. The Milk Marketing Board chose probably the best general manager they could in Mr. Sidney Foster. They did not leave it to the Minister to appoint someone from the Co-operative Society with experience in commerce or industry. The boards must be competent if their schemes are to be successful and they have to act in the public interest. It is not necessary to appoint such people to act in the public interest.
4.30 p.m.
The vital consideration is to allow the boards to go ahead with their job, which is to improve the efficiency and economy of home produce. We believe that they will get on better with that job if they work as a team and if there are not a set of people who are the Minister's nominees and who are really outside the spirit and experience of the rest of the team. It may well be that if the Minister persists in limiting himself to these particular nominations for his nominees, he may find himself debarred from appointing a man or woman whom he particularly wants to see on a board. I can think of some members of the Women's Institute who would be first-class members, but I doubt if they come into any high-power category of


commerce, finance, administration, public affairs or the organisation of workers";
I imagine that the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) could suggest one or two competent women who would work well with a producers' board, certainly in the public interest. It is not necessary to label the Minister's nominees with these special tags, and to say that they represent
commerce, finance, administration, public affairs or the organisation of workers.
It is because we want these boards to go ahead as a team and not as a group of sectional interests, that we have brought this Amendment forward.

Mr. Gerald Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
I feel rather strongly about this Amendment. It really must be all or nothing in this matter. I do not mind if we are quite certain that we have enough conditions laid down to ensure that every one is covered. Otherwise, it would be much safer to state no conditions at all. Political experience has always shown that it is dangerous to enumerate certain people as eligible, and people versed in the law say exactly the same; namely, that we ought not to lay down conditions.
During the Debate in the Standing Committee at least three examples were given of people who might not be included under these designations. The first was a housewife, the second an agriculturist and the third an ex-member of a marketing board. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that the housewife would be covered if she were a member of a Women's Institute. I agree with my hon. Friend that because someone is a member of a Women's Institute, it does not mean that she has particular knowledge of public affairs. I should say that the Women's Institute is more in the nature of a club and is essentially of a private character. In any event a woman might not be a member of a Women's Institute, in which case she would certainly not be covered.
An agriculturist may well have no particular knowledge or experience which fall within the definition in the subsection. The answer of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was: "We do not want agriculturists. They are on the board already. We want some one who is a watchdog for the public," as he termed it. What

better watchdog for the public could we have than a poacher turned gamekeeper? That is exactly what an agriculturist serving in this capacity would be. The third person enumerated was an ex-member of a marketing board, who might well not be qualified within the definition of the subsection.
I now notice on the Order Paper an Amendment which has been put down by the Minister and which slightly widens the definition. Does that not prove that the Minister did not in the first place choose all-embracing words? He has now found that he was wrong and is proposing to add more words; by next week he might want to add a little more. For that reason we must be careful to have the definition completely all-embracing or else have nothing mentioned at all. Even in a sweepstake, a horse is sometimes overlooked and it is not unknown for a lady or gentleman who has drawn "the field" in that sweepstake to win a prize because that one horse has been forgotten. We are now running the risk that we cannot put "the field" into this Bill. I should certainly recommend the Minister to leave out this definition altogether, as the Amendment suggests.

Mr. G. Brown: We discussed this point at length in the Standing Committee and we have, as we promised to do, given it further consideration. We still find it difficult to understand why there should be this pressure about the matter. We are taking power in this Bill to add to a producers' marketing organisation some general representatives not of the producers but of what is widely called the public interest. It seems to us that it would be quite wrong to ask the producers to accept an Act of Parliament which indicated that people would be appointed in addition to their representatives to run a marketing scheme but give them no indication of the kind of people with whom they were to work. I said in Committee, and I repeat, that I am quite certain that there would have been the most vigorous pressure, and properly so, from the other side of the House if we had done that. It seems to us quite proper that we should give some general indication of the sort of people whom the Minister is to appoint.
So far, the argument has mainly been that there are certain groups who


would not be included in this definition. Since the Committee stage I have looked carefully at all the examples which were mentioned, and there does not seem to be any one of them which would not be covered by the definition as it stands. The housewife has been mentioned again today. If it was intended to appoint someone whose present occupation is that of a housewife she would obviously be a housewife who had shown some competence in one or other of the spheres mentioned in the definition. One does not advertise for the ideal housewife and leave it at that. She would be competent in administration or public affairs in the Women's Institute or in some organisation which would clearly bring her within the scope of this definition. The same is true of the other categories which have been mentioned.
The man who has had experience on a marketing board, to whom the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) has referred, is quite clearly covered as having had "experience in administration." It is already open to the Minister to appoint a man of that kind. It is not for me at this stage to deal with the next Amendment, which has been invoked once or twice by hon. Members opposite. My right hon. Friend will be dealing with that Amendment. Subject to that, we feel it proper to give some indication of the kind of people for whom we are looking, and the general headings which we have put into the Bill are wide enough and clear enough to bring within the net of the Minister's choice the kind of people who would be good and useful on the boards. We do not think that anyone who is suitable will be omitted by reason of the terms of the definition which has been decided upon. We have looked at the point carefully, as I said, and in the light of that examination we cannot think that any harm will be done to the scheme or the public interest if we leave the position as it is set out in the Bill. Therefore, I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. McKie: I am rather disappointed at the explanation which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has attempted to give to my hon. Friends. As I listened I gained the impression that while acting under orders, I assume, in resisting the Amendment, he did not feel

particularly comfortable about the way in which he endeavoured to put forward his arguments. I should have thought that he would have been well advised to see the wisdom of this Amendment and to see that it is desigend not to limit the working of the Bill in any way but to make it easier for those responsible for administering the Measure to see that the various marketing boards have available to them, by their composition, the very best skill.
No doubt the hon. Gentleman as a good Socialist always works on a strictly theoretical basis. Indeed, he gave that away by the argument he put forward in resisting the Amendment. He said that he could not conceive of anybody—male or female, I suppose he meant—who would be excluded by the Clause as drafted. He instanced in support of his argument the housewife. I thought that was a rather unhappy illustration for him to call in aid. He inferred that he would not be a party to appointing a housewife unless she had shown some considerable skill in one or other of the categories mentioned in the Clause. I hope I am not doing the hon. Gentleman any injustice in saying that. No doubt he had in mind what an excellent member the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) would be. I have no idea of the hon. Lady's skill as a housewife, but I say without disrespect, that I can conceive many housewives, who have practical skill and whose advice may be most valuable, who would not be covered by any of the headings in the Clause.
I should have thought that if the hon. Gentleman had applied his mind to this subject and tried for two or three minutes to rid himself of the obsessions of Socialist theory, he would have seen the wisdom of this Amendment. Of course, I realise that the Government may think that if they were to give way on this Amendment, they would lose the Government Amendment in line 20 which we shall consider next. But surely that Amendment shows there is considerable apprehension on the part of the Government about the way this Clause stands. Again we have an excellent example of the kind of partiality which the Socialist Government seeks to show on this as well as on nearly every other matter. I ask the hon. Gentleman to give this Amendment serious con-


sideration and even at this late hour to see the wisdom of it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, at the end, to insert:
or as being specially conversant with the interests of consumers of the regulated product.
This Amendment has been put down as a result of further consideration of many points raised both on Second Reading and during the Committee stage. Complaints were made that consumer representation was not being considered even though consumers' representatives may have had a very close association with the great Co-operative movement. I explained in Committee that the purpose of Clause 1 (1, b) was to avoid sectional representation direct, but to widen the experience of the board and to safeguard the public interest. I also explained that the definition was wide enough for the Minister in appointing members to select any person with special knowledge of consumer demands or representatives even of the Co-operative movement. It is right and proper that that should be so, for many such representatives have not only a wide knowledge of the interests of consumers, but also have all-round qualifications. If there is no direct reference to consumers in Clause 1, this Amendment makes it doubly sure that they shall be considered. It refers to
consumers of the regulated product.
That phrase may have caused some little dismay in the minds of some hon. Members, and perhaps a brief explanation is called for. The reference to a regulated product is made because of the very wide range of products which can be covered by marketing schemes. For example, we already have a hops marketing scheme. We may shortly have a marketing scheme for wool and there may be others dealing with other commodities. It was necessary to make it clear that individuals who are considered should have a fairly wide knowledge of the interests of consumers of the regulated product.
4.45 p.m.
It might be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment standing in my name in page 2, line 15, at the end, to insert:

(3) In this section the expression 'consumers of the regulated product' means persons who purchase the product, or commodities produced wholly or partly there-from, for their own consumption or use and not persons who purchase the product or such commodities as aforesaid, for the purpose of any trade or industry carried on by them.
I believe that this Amendment has caused some misapprehension particularly in the minds of my hon. Friends who are associated with the Co-operative movement. The wording of this Amendment follows the wording of Section 9 (6) of the Act of 1931. The point is simply that a manufacturer who purchases milk for the purpose of manufacturing milk chocolate would not be regarded on that account as a milk consumer for the purpose of this Bill. Nor would the person who buys hops for manufacturing purposes be regarded as a consumer, because the man who consumes the beer is the real consumer of the regulated product.
The Amendment makes it clear that persons who have acquired knowledge of consumer interests, through association with the Co-operative movement or otherwise, would be the sort of people who would be eligible for appointment when the Minister is considering his minimum of two or maximum of five, according to the number of members there may be appointed. I hope that I have made it clear, as it was clear to me from the outset, that it was never our intention to ignore or to sidestep those with a special knowledge of consumer interests. I think the Amendment makes it transparently clear that those who have acquired such knowledge through association with the great consumers' movement will not, or could not, be ignored when appointments are made to any one of these marketing boards.

Mrs. Manning: Does this also cover the great body of housewives?

Mr. Williams: Obviously, those who have a close knowledge of the interests of the consumer, wherever that knowledge happens to have been derived, would be covered by this Amendment.

Mr. James Hudson: The Minister has introduced an Amendment which makes his Bill much less objectionable to those who have opposed this type of legislation. Indeed, it makes the general tenor of this legislation much


more acceptable to those who have been interested in its progress from the point of view of the consumer. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on giving an opportunity for the consideration of this matter. When we are talking of a guaranteed market and fixed prices in the interests of the consumer, there is no case for not making some attempt to rationalise the fundamental differences between consumer and producer. There must be such differences and we must make attempts to bridge them. It is a good thing to accept the principle that consumers will at last meet with producers on a common basis, even though consumers may not yet be very numerous in general representation on the marketing boards.
The progress has at least commenced of the method by which we shall bring into account in this rationalised way the views of the consumer where price is involved. It is all very well for hon. Members on either side of the House to talk about providing a guaranteed market. After all, a guaranteed market is a body of buyers, and it is just as well to make it a body of willing buyers if we can do so. The success of our marketing scheme will be advanced if the buyer feels that his ideas are being taken into account in common decisions which a marketing board of this sort will endeavour to carry through. I feel that the advance which has been made is a step away from the attempt to put the consumer under a separate committee. We have had the consumer under a separate committee up to the present time. Indeed, I suppose that separate consumers committees will continue, but the fact is the consumer will now be accepted as one of those people whom the Minister will take into account in appointing special representatives on the marketing boards.
I am a little uncertain, however, about the full significance of this proposal, and I should like to put a couple of questions to the Minister about it. Under the Bill as it stands, the Minister's appointees would be representative of "commerce, finance, administration, public affairs" and so on, and we have now got to the point at which one may be a representative of the consumers of the regulated product. My two questions

are these. First, does the proposal in the Amendment give to the Minister the right to consider a person who is suggested to him by the Co-operative Union because he is conversant, as the Amendment says, with the interests of the consumers? I imagine that it does, but I should like to be clearly assured that I am correct in that understanding. My second question is: Does this Amendment give the Minister the right to appoint such a person because he is a consumer, and, maybe, represents consumers, even if he is also a director or manager of a wholesale or retail Cooperative society, which, as the limiting phrase in the Second Amendment suggests, purchases the product from the Marketing Board in order to process it or still further develop it through trade or industry?
After the Minister's speech, I assume that my questions will be given an affirmative answer. I am asking the Minister whether I am correct in this assumption, because I want to be quite clear about it. I speak for many hon. Members who are very much interested not only in the Co-operative movement, but in the claim of the consumer to be considered in this type of legislation, and I think they will be very much reassured if I am correct in the assumptions which I have made on these two questions. I support the Minister's proposal.

Mr. T. Williams: With the leave of the House, I can answer both questions of my hon. Friend quite readily in the affirmative. Even if the director had less expert knowledge of the interests of the consumers than the other person, the fact that he was a director would bring him in under any one of the references appearing in the Clause—

"commerce, finance, administration, public affairs or the organisation of workers."

Sir T. Dugdale: Only a few minutes have elapsed since we dealt with the last Amendment, and the House should observe what a difficulty we are now in because the Minister did not see fit to accept our Amendment. We are now trying to extend the qualifications of these people who may be appointed to the marketing boards, and, from the last speech which we have heard, it is quite clear that the hon. Member for West


Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) was talking in terms of representation by right, whereas the whole wording of the Clause suggests that the appointees would be qualified for the appointment, and that is what the Minister means. We have already got into one difficulty about the housewife. We are very anxious, as the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) knows, that there should be representatives of the housewives, and we had a Debate upstairs on this very point. We were satisfied that the Clause as drafted did include housewives, who were covered by the phrase "experienced in administration." We were given to understand, indeed, the hon. Lady the Member for Epping was told by the Parliamentary Secretary, that housewives would be included in the Clause as it was.
Now, however, the Minister has put forward these two new Amendments, and assures the hon. Lady that her point is covered in one of the Amendments. The Minister used the words "after consideration," but it appears that the right terms would be "under pressure," in order to meet those of his own supporters who speak on behalf of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. I should like to know exactly where we stand now. If we take the two Amendments together, we arrive at this form of wording:
specially conversant with the interests of consumers of the regulated product who purchase the product, or commodities produced wholly or partly therefrom, for their own consumption or use.
Then, it goes on to say:
and not persons who purchase the product or such commodities as aforesaid, for the purpose of any trade or industry carried on by them.
The Minister went on to explain that those words were designed to leave out chocolate manufacturers, or the Hop Marketing Board, who would sell direct to the breweries, but, surely, the Whole-sale Co-operative Society engages in trade just as much as the chocolate manufacturer or anybody else? Presumably, these words are put in to include a representative of the C.W.S.; if they are not put in for that purpose, we are at a loss to understand why they are put in at all. We have expressed the view before that there must be some members of the C.W.S. who would come under the designation of people with experience in commerce, finance, administration and

public affairs. Presumably, the Minister cannot find any members of the C.W.S. who would come in under that definition. They are so incompetent that he has to put in the new wording in order to bring their representatives on to the Board.
That is very unsatisfactory, and it is very difficult for us on this side of the House to understand where we are going. We think the Minister should give a little more information. Does this Amendment entitle members of the C.W.S. to be appointed by the Minister or does it not? If it does, is this the only provision entitling them to be appointed, and will it mean that, automatically, there always will be one of them appointed? Or will it only give the Government power to appoint one? Or were we right in our original submission that it might be possible to find some members of the C.W.S. who had experience and showed capacity in commerce, finance and administration, as the Bill was originally drafted. We are quite at a loss to understand the implications of these two Amendments and we hope the Minister will give us further information before we decide on our action.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Coldrick: The hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) sought, I think very unwisely, to pour ridicule on certain members of the C.W.S. I would respectfully remind him that if C.W.S. directors were as incompetent as the people for whom apparently he spoke they might have been obliged to come to the Minister in order to ask him to do for them what he is being asked to do for the farmers and others I should like to be clear about the proposals which are now before the House A great many hon. Members constantly speak as though they are the representatives of the consumers of this country and they are constantly protesting that they stand for the public interest. We want it to be clearly understood that consumers' interests are only effective to the extent to which they are organised. When reference is made, as it has constantly been made in the Debate, to the housewife, I think we should say that it is abundantly clear that if the housewives were organised as effectively as the farmers, then housewives would be able to obtain more representation.
Let us be practical about this proposal. As representatives of the Cooperative movement we are not claiming any specific sectional or institutional interest. We believe that, as a Cooperative movement, we are the only body in this country which speaks effectively on behalf of the organised consumer. Within the Co-operative movement there are 10 million registered members and these, with their families, must represent over one-half of the population of this country. We are not speaking, therefore, in terms of a very small number of people. I am not clear from what the Minister has said whether he intends to accord to this vast mass of organised consumers specific representation or merely that he will take into consideration the fact that a person represents these people as one of the qualifications which would entitle him to consideration.
Let there be no ambiguity; as far as we are concerned, we press for direct representation for the consumers. If we analyse this Bill we discover that under-lying it is a belief on the part of those responsible that the consumer is not interested in production. The assumption seems to be that as consumers we are concerned merely with the final consumption of the article, but obviously there is no rational justification for any form of production unless it is for consumption, and unless the consumer is to have some say in safeguarding his interests it is fairly obvious that the producer will predominate in determining the whole of the policy to be pursued.
It has been suggested—from the other side, of course—that the producer boards must of necessity represent the public interest. I have read a great deal about these producer boards as they operated from about 1931 until about 1939 and—

Mr. Turton: From 1933.

Mr. Coldrick: I would respectfully remind hon. Members opposite, as well as my right hon. Friend, that when Lord Addison first introduced a Measure of this character in 1931 he had precisely the same intention as the present Minister, but in the event, we know perfectly well that the producers' boards deliber-

ately organised scarcity in this country to raise the prices so as to satisfy the producers. When hon. Members talk about public interest let me give a classic example. Perhaps they can say whether this represents the consumers' interest or the public interest. Let us take the Bacon Marketing Board, which came into existence in 1934 and existed from 1934 until 1938.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The Minister's Amendment says:
…conversant with the interests of consumers.
Will the hon. Member indicate where his remarks have relevance to this Amendment?

Mr. Coldrick: With all respect, what I am seeking to establish is that within this particular Clause the term "public interest" can be construed in such an elastic way that nobody knows what it means. I am seeking to demonstrate that we believe the consumers should have more effective and direct representation on these boards.
I will not pursue the point, but let me respectfully remind the Parliamentary Secretary that when he spoke in the Second Reading Debate he tried to give the impression that this board, which is now being established, was itself a Co-operative society. I respectfully suggest to him that he draws his analogies in future from a field with which he is more familiar rather than trespass on the province of the Cooperative Society. Under such a definition, any group of people organising themselves for the purpose of fleecing the public would be a Co-operative Society. As one who knows something about the Co-operative movement I repudiate that definition completely as one which in no way covers what we mean by the Co-operative movement. I ask the Minister to make specific provision within this legislation for the organised consumers of this country to have representation upon these boards in order to ensure the greatest measure of efficiency in production and the greatest satisfaction so far as the community is concerned.

Mr. Hurd: I think the speech to which we have just listened was the best possible lesson to the Minister on the folly of making this exception, of adding a par-


ticular class to those from whom he may select people to sit on these marketing boards. It shows how much wiser it would have been to have left himself a free field of choice.

Mr. Coldrick: Would the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) extend the interesting submission he has made that my speech was the best possible reason for the Minister not taking this action?

Mr. Hurd: Because obviously what we heard from the hon. Member is founded on complete ignorance if I may say so without being offensive. It is quite understandable. The hon. Member is not himself a producer and therefore cannot see into the minds of producers who have spent many years and a great deal of labour in trying to build up these marketing schemes for the better and more efficient marketing of their own products. I think it is understandable that he should not know.

Mr. Coldrick: I have spent a great part of my life as a producer, so perhaps the hon. Member for Newbury will withdraw that part of his statement. Will he indicate clearly how a producers' board is specially interested in the welfare of the public or of the consumer?

Mr. Hurd: I think we are getting rather wide of this Amendment, but I would say very briefly that if home produce is to stand up to the outside competition which it met before the war, and will meet again, then it has to be marketed efficiently and economically, and in the case of the Pigs Marketing Board and Milk Marketing Board producers have taken considerable and effective steps in that direction. I should be out of Order to pursue the matter any further.
I want to press the Minister for a clear explanation of the meaning of the consequential Amendment. The extra class of people he is adding to those from whom he may select in appointing the Board are to be:
Specially conversant with the interests of consumers of the regulated product.
It goes on to define consumers of the regulated product and it says they are:
Persons who purchase the product, or commodities produced wholly or partly therefrom, for their own consumption or use and not persons who purchase the products or such com-

modifies as aforesaid, for the purpose of any trade or industry carried on by them.
I happen to have in my constituency a Milk Marketing Board factory, and just outside the constituency there is a C.W.S. factory which, I understand, is buying milk and selling it for its own purposes. The milk may be sold for manufacturing purposes and partly as liquid milk. It probably varies with the season. Does this mean that the C.W.S. would be debarred, under this consequential Amendment, from being among the people from whom the Minister may select the members of the board? They are certainly buying milk and trading in milk. I should like the Minister to explain, and if the answer goes in one way, then I am afraid those who have put such pressure on the Minister to have what they call "representation of the consumer" on the marketing boards will be disappointed. I reinforce what I said just now, that it is an entirely wrong idea that in a marketing board there should be two camps, one supposed to represent producers and the other supposed to represent finance, and so on. It is a hopeless way to try to run any concern. These boards can only be run as teams. I urge the Minister again not to submit to the pressure which has been put upon him to appoint representatives—and this is what has been frankly suggested by hon. Members opposite—of particular interests.

Mr. Turton: There is one question I want to ask. Who will be left out? Who will not be able to be chosen? Trade, commerce, finance, administration, organisation of workers, and now all those of us who know anything about how to eat food—all come in as candidates to be selected. Nobody is left out. This reinforces the argument made on the previous Amendment. Now, the words mean nothing. I do not know why the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Coldrick) talked about the Cooperative Wholesale Society on this Amendment, because I should have thought that if there was an Amendment by which they could not come in, it would have been this one.
If there is a good representative of the Co-operative Societies on this body, I have no objection; but I hope also that the right hon. Gentleman will look at the interests of the Housewives' League, which, I believe, is far better as represent-


ing the consumers. The housewives of the League represent their own sex. It is not a "household husbands league." Members of the League represent their sex rather better than the Co-operative Societies, which are partly mixed up in politics and partly engaged in commerce. [Interruption.] If hon. Members object to my saying "partly," I will say wholly mixed up in politics. I thought I was being as fair as I usually am, when I suggested they were partly mixed up in politics and partly engaged in commerce. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Housewives' League?"] I understand the Housewives' League is attached to no party at all. I do not know. It may be that some hon. Gentlemen have more knowledge than I of the Housewives' League. Some of its members may go to Blackpool at Whitsuntide. I do not know.
But let us get back to this Amendment. This Amendment brings in "Uncle Tom Cobley and all." Are we to make nonsense out of the Bill? As the right hon. Gentleman has drafted the definition, anyone who is partly a consumer and partly engaged in retail trade will be excluded. I should have thought it would be a wise thing to have some who are partly consumers and partly engaged in the retail or even the wholesale trade. I see the point of the hon. Member for North Bristol, and it may be wise to allow the Minister to look around amongst representatives of Co-operative Wholesale Society to see if there is one worthy to serve on the board. As the Minister has drafted the Amendment, however, I am sure he excludes them from his purview, and that seems so unfortunate for some of his supporters. We have reached a curious state of nonsense. I suggest the Minister should leave the whole thing free and unfettered, and wipe out this definition.

5.15 p.m.

Sir William Darling: The Amendment interests me because of the arguments which I have heard from hon. Members opposite. It is suggested that the only representatives of the consumers of this country are the Co-operative societies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of the organised consumers."]—and we have heard the statement made that they represent 10 million families. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have seen

it printed extensively in the publications which the Co-operative societies issue. I would repudiate the difficulty that appears to arise in the mind of the Minister. We are the consumers of this country. Where are the consumers of this country? Nothing could be simpler surely than to find a consumer. Producers may be few and far between. Active workers may be rare. But as to consumers, there need be no industrious search for them. It is quite nonsense for those who should declare their interest in supporting this special Amendment to say that the body in which they are specially interested and have specially mentioned here is the only representative of the consumers. This effrontery of the Co-operative movement, which has been marked in the last few years, since the rise of the Government with which it is associated, should be checked. It has no right to speak for the consumers of this country.
The great mass of the distribution in this country is done by the small shopkeepers. Eighty per cent. of the consumed goods are distributed—inefficiently, if hon. Member like—but distributed, according to the choice of the people, not by monopoly concerns and Co-operative societies but by small shopkeepers. I hope the Minister will not yield to those who would provide some specially devised Amendment to find a place for the political Co-operative Party. I know bargains have been made and that bargains must be kept, but this is the House of Commons speaking for all the consumers of the country, and the Co-operative movement does not represent all the consumers in the country. It is not the only body representative of the organised consumers of this country. I know something about Co-operative society organisation. It is a very loose one. It is the pride of the Co-operative movement that anyone who goes into a Co-operative shop and puts down a shilling can become a member. That is not a very elaborate method of organisation, and not a very representative one. It is merely collecting the bobs and counting the heads. Do not let us base any profound argument upon such a premise.
There are other organised bodies of which the Minister must be well aware that represent the consumers' interests.


He may repudiate the Housewives' League. The only objection to the Housewives' League is that they are many, unanimous and clamorous. I know that hon. Members opposite from the Midlands feel a little irritable about the subject today. I myself was accosted in the Lobby by clamorous members of the Housewives' League. However, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has heard of the Townswomen's Guilds, which are nonpolitical bodies, and important bodies, and run into many thousands of organised women of the working and lower middle classes. They are bodies which can, at any rate, rightly represent the views of consumers. They are organised bodies. in Scotland, at any rate—and perhaps, in the countryside of England—there are the rural institutes representing many thousands of women.
If the Minister is in serious difficulty in finding representatives of the consumers I can tell him that there are plenty of organised bodies representative of the consumers. I hope he will resist this proposal on behalf of a movement which is not representative of consumers. Indeed, we know of many complaints of unsatisfactory service as regards meat, milk and bread. Hon. Members know the difficulties which are going on in committee meetings today. I will go further, and accept the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) about the Grocers' Federation. A grocer is a retail trader, but he is, after all, also a consumer. Even on the limited diet allowed us by the Minister of Food, he does eat. So, if the Minister went to the Grocers' Federation—

Mr. Coldrick: Mr. Coldrick rose—

Sir W. Darling: Let me just finish. After all, the criminal does not interrupt the judge.

Mr. Coldrick: The point is whether the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the consumer being represented on these boards. If so, I am in agreement with him. I am not merely asking for the Co-operative movement to be represented, and I do not want him to act on the assumption that I am opposing the particular people to whom he has referred. Will he specifically say whether he is in favour of the boards being composed

almost exclusively of producers, or whether he would prefer to see a substantial number of representatives of the consumers?

Sir W. Darling: The Clause which we are discussing deals with the question of to what extent, if any, consumers will be represented. I think that the consumers should be represented, but they should not be a dominating factor. What I am rebutting and resisting is the party claim put forward by those Members of this House who are here as Co-operative Members. I resent their professing to speak for the consumers as a whole, because they have no right to do so. Their attempt to include in this Clause a special class of persons with whom they are associated and with whom their interests are attached both personally and financially, is one which we should resist. I want consumers' boards of representative consumers in this country and not selected persons whose political propensities are in favour of those who have spoken for them this afternoon.

Mrs. Ganley: I think we are entering into a wide sphere so far as the definition of consumers is concerned and whether the Co-operative organisation referred to is a consumers' organisation. I suggest to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) that in fact the Co-operative movement is a consumers' organisation, and the only organisation of consumers as such. We have been discussing various other people who are organised. The Housewives' League is an organisation of housewives to express the point of view which they desire to express, but it is not an organisation of consumers to produce and distribute goods to the consumers. Here we have a request—if I may be allowed to refer to the speech that I made on the Second Reading of the Bill—that the interests of the consumers should be explicit in the first place, in order that the co-ordination of the producers and the consumers can be brought about.
Let me speak of grouping and packing for marketing. Some hon. Members raised the point this afternoon. The hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Coldrick) did not speak as a producer. The Cooperative movement is producing—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she cannot go into a discussion whether the Co-operative movement is a producer or a consumer. That is only relevant so far as the representation of consumers on these boards is concerned.

Mrs. Ganley: I was trying to make reference to the importance of the person selected for consumer representation not being a producer. I want to make the point that this particular organisation which has been quoted is a producer as well as a consumer organisation. It is very definitely a producers' organisation but it is also a great consumers' organisation, and, therefore, it has a particular knowledge of the consumers' needs. Because of the fact that individual consumers have a right to control the whole of this organisation, they do express their needs perhaps more clearly than any other kind of organisation.
Reference has been made in the second Amendment to the phrase
for the purpose of any trade or industry…
I should like to hear a definition of that. The Minister gave us his promise that this would include a wide field of selection, and he quoted, for example, that persons who would be purchasing hops to make them into beer, would not be considered as consumers of hops under this particular Amendment. I can follow that perfectly clearly, but the question has been raised by one or two hon. Members opposite that the Co-operative Wholesale Society, because it is an organisation which is purchasing goods for processing, cannot come under this definition. We should be glad if the Minister would explain that, in that instance, it can come under this definition, because it is not only a body that is purchasing for the purpose of processing, but a body which is brought into being primarily for the purpose of supplying consumers with the goods which they have organised themselves to distribute and sell. In that respect the Co-operative movement is a consumers' movement and can come under this definition, and it can be an organisation from which the Minister can choose representatives on the marketing boards. Because of that special knowledge, such representation would be of very great use to the marketing boards and help rather than hinder the work that the boards can do.

Mr. York: I think that the House is beginning to realise the muddle in which the Minister has put us. None of us can now understand exactly what the Amendment which the Minister is moving means. We are now being led to believe that in fact the Government are doing exactly the opposite from what the Minister intends them to do. The C.W.S. point is one which we must clear up. I hope that the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary will speak again in order to get this matter straight. Where the C.W.S. is a collector of milk and subsequently uses that milk for processing for various purposes, it would appear to us that it cannot be included within this definition. We understood that the whole purpose of this part of the Clause was to make it possible for any suitable, competent persons, almost regardless of their particular jobs, not be debarred from being selected as Co-operative members on these boards. We believe that the second Amendment would in fact debar some people whom hon. Members opposite believe would be suitable persons on the boards. The more we amend, add to, and generally meddle with this Clause the worse muddle we get into.
It is becoming more and more clear as we go on, that the way in which we should deal with this problem is to cut out all these special classes unless—and this is the point which I want to put to the Minister—it is his intention that there should be a sectional representation of the Co-operative Societies. Whether we agree or disagree does not matter for the purpose of my argument. If that is his intention, let him be honest and put that into the Bill. Then we shall all know where we are, and we can vote accordingly. At the present time, there appears to me to be that alternative, or the alternative of taking all these special classes out of the Bill, such as we suggested in our Amendment. All the Minister is now doing is making it more difficult for the general public and the various organisations concerned to understand what he is getting at, and making it more and more difficult for the House of Commons itself to know what he means.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not think I need say more than one or two sentences in


reply to the Debate. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Bristol (Mr. Coldrick), I cannot add to the statement I made to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson). The alleged confusion that appears to have cropped up is due to lack of knowledge of what the contents of the proposed Amendment in page 2, line 15, mean. I explained in my brief statement that that Amendment had reference to Section 9 (6) of the 1931 Act, which referred to the consumers' committee. It was and is the duty of the consumers' committee to look after the interests of the consumer. Therefore "consumer" had to be defined, and "consumer" is defined in almost identical terms in the proposed new subsection (3). It may very well be that neither the C.W.S. nor the Co-operative Union are themselves domestic consumers, but they can be conversant with the interests of the consumer of the finished article. That is the explanation, and there is really nothing confusing about it.
Several questions have been asked to which I need not reply, except to say that I regret that the hon. Member for North Bristol made a reference to the Parliamentary Secretary. After all, for the moment we are the pianists; we are trying to do our best, and hon. Members ought not to shoot too often. I think I can say for the Parliamentary Secretary that, young though he is, he has been a member of a Co-operative Society for a very long time and ought to know something of the internal machinery. For myself, I should think I am as old a member of the Co-operative Society as any hon. Member in this House, unless any members here are older than me in years. I am not sure that it could be said by every Co-operative Society member, as I can, that everything I stand up in, except a pair of cuff-links that I bought in this House for 4½d. 20 years ago, comes from the "Co-op," so that I have had some little association with the Co-operative movement for a long period of time. I do not think that there is anything more I need say, except that I hope the explanation I have given of the Amendment in page 2, line 15 is now very clear.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I had not intended to say anything more, but I really think that the explanation

given by the right hon. Gentleman has left matters just as confused as they were before. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I shall explain very briefly why I think that. I am sure we are all very sorry for him, that this surrender to Co-operative pressure should only have brought on the head of the Parliamentary Secretary an unbridled attack from the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Coldrick). In passing, I must warn His Majesty's Government that this rift between the consumer as represented by the Co-operative societies and the Government will get wider and wider as the full implications of the Lucas Report are appreciated by Co-operative societies, and as the joint interests of Co-operative Societies with other distributive organisations gets recognised; and neither the harmony at Shanklin—when the local Co-operative society supplied the Government Front Bench with the food that is now the subject of a prosecution—nor this Parliament will remain indefinitely.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Deputy-Speaker rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I appreciate that I should not be in Order if I laboured that point further. I do think that the Minister Would have been well advised to leave the situation as it was. As he himself said in Committee:
the Co-operative movement and consumers generally are well cared for.
That should surely have been enough satisfaction to hon. Members representing the Co-operative societies. The Minister now tells us that the last words of the proposed new subsection (3) will not keep the Co-operative societies from being a body from whom a member may be nominated. He said that, though they may, in fact, use the purchase of foodstuffs for the purposes of a trade or industry carried on by them, none the less they would come in because they are thoroughly conversant with the interests of consumers. Well, there are other wholesale organisations. Shortly after the Minister made the statement in Committee which I have just quoted, he said:
if we were to start limiting ourselves we should be confronted with the problem that every wholesaler grocers' body would claim some right to representation,"—

Sir W. Darling: Why not?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —"distributors, private traders, retailers and all kinds of people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 8th February, 1949; c. 16–17.]
They have equal knowledge of the interests of consumers and are very conversant with those interests Are we then to take it from his statement that, though they buy foodstuffs for the purpose of selling them in a trade or industry carried on by them, none the less they are, like the Co-operative society, to be regarded as a body from which a member may be nominated? What is fair for Cooperative societies should also be fair for wholesale grocers' organisations, or any other body. I think we are entitled to an answer on that point, because it does affect very considerable interests which have just as much right to be heard in this House as the nominees of Co-operative societies.
Finally, as there is a muddle here, and as people are not quite sure what this law will mean, and as we are now passing an Act of Parliament, would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman—who has done this before—to look at the matter again between now and the stage in another place to find a form of words which will make quite certain that consumers' interests are properly represented without confining, as it may be this does, representation in that capacity to a particular consumer's interests, and those interests those of the Co-operative society? That would be most unfair, and as soon as there was a change of Government, would lead to a change in this Bill, which in its turn would be regrettable.
My hon. Friends and I do not propose to divide against this Amendment, because we do believe in the principle of consumer representation, but I make an earnest plea to the right hon. Gentleman to use the facilities that another place still provides, and the fact that he has another Parliamentary Secretary in that other place, to think again and to bring in an amended form of wording when this Bill reaches the other place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 15, at end, insert:
(3) In this section the expression "consumers of the regulated product" means persons who purchased the product, or commodities pro-

duced wholly or partly therefrom, for their own consumption or use and not persons who purchase the product or such commodities as aforesaid, for the purpose of any trade or industry carried on by them.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Clause 2.—(DIRECTIONS BY MINISTERS TO BOARDS AS RESPECTS CERTAIN MATTERS.)

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 2, after "conclusions" to insert:
and the reasons for such conclusions.
The purpose of this Amendment is to secure publication of not merely the conclusions of the committee of investigation but also the reasons for the conclusions. I have always taken the view that the proper way of dealing with these marketing boards is to treat them as any other form of monopoly under the Monopoly and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act. The Minister has at different times gone some way towards showing that he does not disagree with me very much in that. He has frequently tried to make the practice, and indeed the composition, of the investigation committee similar to if not identical with the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission.
However, there has always been one great difference between the procedure under this Bill and the procedure under the Monopoly and Restrictive Practices Act, and that is in the way in which the report of the investigating committee is dealt with. Under the Monopoly and Restrictive Practices Act the report is laid before Parliament, and by that means everybody in the country knows what the investigating committee thinks; whereas under this Bill, as at present drafted, merely the conclusions of the report are published.
During the Committee stage we tried to approximate the two procedures, and the Joint Parliamentry Secretary put forward the view that on grounds of public policy, where, for instance, some secret processes were involved, it might be inadvisable to publish the whole of the report. There is no great difference between us in this matter, and we are trying to be accommodating. We are asking merely for the reasons to be published so that the Minister can avoid giving any details he considers should not be published. I hope that the Government will be accommodating in their turn


and either accept this form of words or introduce some other words they consider more suitable for this purpose. This was not a matter which divided the Committee on party lines, and there were one or two Members who support the Government who agreed with our contention. It was to avoid the Minister being faced with a Division in which some of his supporters would be found against him, that we withdrew. We withdrew, with our usual tact, so that we could have the matter out at this stage.

Mr. York: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. G. Brown: The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was taxing his memory a little hard when he said that we were threatened with one or two of our supporters voting in favour of his contention. I have just looked up our proceedings on Committee and I find that apart from the hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) no one else took part in the Debate.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member will find that one of his hon. Friends intervened at a later stage to say that he would have voted with us, although it was not on the right Amendment.

Mr. Brown: I am not sure who was on the right or wrong Amendment; perhaps the hon. Members have not got the right Amendment at this stage. There is not much difference between us on this matter. Originally, we were discussing whether we should lay the whole of the report. I took exception to that on behalf of my right hon. Friend on the ground of secret processes, and also that it might be undesirable to disclose the kind of evidence that is given in the course of these inquiries—it might put ideas into other people's heads. In the past, we have normally laid the conclusions, although on one occasion we did lay the whole report when that seemed to be in the public interest. I told the Committee that I was advised, and I have since had my advice confirmed, that nothing in this Bill prevents us from doing what we have done in the past.
The difficulty about accepting this narrower Amendment is that the report

of the committee will seldom be issued in such a way that we can easily, without rewriting it, disentangle the reasons for the conclusions from the main body of the report. There will not be separate headings, such as "conclusions" and "the reasons therefore," with the evidence then given in the ordinary way. The reasons will fairly clearly emerge, however, when anyone reads the report. We think that on the whole, the public interest would be better served if we proceeded as we have proceeded in the past. As I have said, we have published in the past the whole report, as in the case of the Milk Report, but big issues of that kind are not likely to arise often, although when they do they can be dealt with in that way.

Mr. Turton: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, to leave out subsections (5) and (6), and to insert:
(5) The Minister may at any time, after consultation with the board concerned, by order revoke or vary any order in force under the said subsection (2) so as either—

(a) to withdraw the whole or any part of the directions in force thereunder; or
(b) to vary or add to those directions in any manner which he thinks necessary or expedient in order better to attain the purposes for which those directions were given."

This Amendment arises out of an intervention made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) during the Committee stage. There was apparently some confusion between these two subsections. After consideration, we felt that this Amendment was justified and that it would make the matter clearer. Under subsection (3) the only question the board may require the Minister to refer to a committee of investigation is whether a specific act or omission or intended act or omission has, or will have, certain results and whether those results will be contrary to the public interests. The committee has nothing to do with what order is actually made. It follows, therefore, that the full procedure of subsection (3) is inapplicable to an order which


merely withdraws directions given under a previous order. It is also inapplicable to an order which varies or adds to those directions. This does away with the distinction made in the subsections between the power to withdraw an order made under subsection (2) and the power to vary such an order. It provides that both shall be exercisable by the Minister until after consultation with the board. I am satisfied that this is an improvement on the original subsections.

Sir T. Dugdale: I thank the Minister for having considered this point, although the matter is still very involved. Certainly it is clearer than it was before.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4.—(TEMPORARY DIRECTIONS BY MINISTERS.)

Sir T. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, after "Act," to insert:
and (b) the relevant act or omission or intended act or omission of the Board relates to, or to a commodity produced from, a commodity for the time being specified in the first Schedule to the Agriculture Act, 1947.
This is really the controversial clause in the Bill, and we spent a long time in Committee trying to persuade the Government to delete it. So far we have failed in our attempt to get it deleted, and as a result we are trying to limit its effect by this Amendment. The Clause empowers the Minister to make a temporary order while a matter is being examined by a committee of investigation. This Amendment provides that such temporary orders shall be given only in respect of commodities for which a price and market are guaranteed under the Agriculture Act, 1947, as specified in the First Schedule. Since the 1931 and 1933 Acts, we have accepted the fact that a new set of circumstances have been created owing to the guaranteed markets and assured prices for commodities.
Although we have criticised in detail certain provisions in this Bill, when we came to Clause 4, which gives the Minister very extensive powers, we felt that there might be less objection to the Minister making a temporary order in respect of commodities coming under the First Schedule if he considered the matter

was too urgent to wait even for the period of 28 days under Clause 2. As far as these commodities are concerned, the producers are guaranteed against any specific loss under their price and market guarantee. On the other hand we believe there is every objection to temporary orders being made in respect of non-guaranteed commodities, such as horticultural products. In such cases a board might well suffer grievous loss as a result of an injudicious temporary order. The committee of investigation might report not in favour of, but against, the Minister. We argued in Committee about the various commodities in respect of which harm might result to producers, particularly soft fruits.
After very careful consideration we are still unconvinced that the Clause is necessary for the efficient working of this Bill. It gives rise to possibilities of serious loss and injury to producers, and gives powers to the Minister which are absolutely unnecessary to make the work of the marketing boards a success. We equally feel that the powers are unnecessary not only from the producers' point of view, but also from the consumers' point of view. Something might be referred to the committee of investigation and they might report against the interests of the consumers. We believe that that should be done under Clause 2, and that the procedure adopted in this Clause is unnecessary. Nothing which the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary have so far said has convinced us to the contrary. Producers certainly do not want this Clause and we do not believe that consumers want it either, and it is in the hope that the Minister may still be ready to meet our point of view that I have moved the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. and gallant Gentleman has travelled widely on this Amendment and it will be open to hon. Members to cover the three succeeding Amendments to this Clause in the same way, should they so desire.

Mr. G. Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to remind the House that if non-scheduled commodities are included in the Bill, it might well bring ruin to farmers whose whole livelihood is in


perishable crops such as strawberries and raspberries, which are not included in the Schedule. If the Minister gives directions which may alter the prices of these commodities, the producer of fresh fruit may well be ruined. I particularly request the right hon. Gentleman to consider the Amendment carefully, because otherwise I believe the effect may be to kill the boards. If soft fruit growers realise that the Minister may give a temporary direction, they may be frightened off altogether; they may not vote for the board in the first place or, if they do, they may then refuse to continue growing their crops. The exact opposite of what the Minister desires will be the result. Unless the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment, he may well prevent the birth or subsequent progress of these boards. Further, the Amendment will protect the Minister. All Ministers are human, and the right hon. Gentleman may make a mistake. The committee of investigation may well find that his decision was wrong, but by then the damage will have been done. The Minister may feel very small about it, and might even have to resign his office.
On the other hand, I can see that the Minister wants to protect the public from being exploited by a board laying down an extravagant price for a particular commodity. I believe that could be overcome, however, by the right hon. Gentleman saying that prices must be fixed early, say, in February. If they are not to his exact taste, then he can give his direction, and the matter can go before the committee of investigation, to be settled before the fruit is picked. As the right hon. Gentleman will not take the Clause out of the Bill altogether, I appeal to him to limit it to scheduled commodities. This would safeguard consumers and help producers as well.

Mr. York: I wish to support the Amendment. As the Clause is drafted, it affects only market gardeners and certain other specialised growers. The House may not be aware that market gardeners have three enemies today. First, there is the weather; second, there is the Minister of Food, who is deliberately going out of his way to smash them; third, and to add to these two formidable enemies, we now see the Minister of Agriculture, of all people, coming in to make their lives more difficult and their future less certain.

That is a heavy blow. We expected the Minister of Agriculture at least to stand forth as a champion for the market gardeners. We know that he is not quite so powerful as his colleague the Minister of Food, but if the Clause were devoted entirely to scheduled commodities, then his hands would be clean so far as market gardeners are concerned.
6.0 p.m.
Does anybody in this House really believe that it would now be possible, after the machinations of the Ministry of Food, for a board covering the onion industry ever to be set up? Of course it would not. That is impossible today. There will be no market in this country in the future for home-grown onions, so there cannot be a marketing board. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite will look into the facts, they will find that the market belongs to the foreigners, and not to the British growers. If this power in Clause 4 is used, it is quite obvious that the board against whom it is used will be voted out of power and out of existence by the producers at the next annual meeting—and that will be the end of that board. I cannot believe that the Minister of Agriculture could ever use these powers, and if he cannot use them, why is he demanding them? Is it for political purposes, in order to quieten criticism from his own back benchers, or does he believe that it will be necessary on occasions to use them?

Mr. Alpass: Yes.

Mr. York: The hon. Member says "Yes," but I will leave it to the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary to say so. What is perhaps more difficult is what happens if and when the Minister does slip up and make a mistake in this matter? If he issues an order, the effect of which is to prevent producers from selling their crops at a proper price, and subsequently he is found to have made an error of judgment, the only persons who can suffer are the producers. The Minister cannot suffer, the taxpayers cannot suffer; the only persons who will have to bear the whole burden of the Minister's mistake are the growers. That is not justice, whatever else it is. For all these reasons, I ask the House to support this Amendment. This is an unjust and unreasonable power to give to any Government.

Mr. G. Brown: It might be convenient if at this stage I were to say a word about the Amendment. There is some reason for suggesting that to some extent hon. Members are still missing the significance of lines 30 to 32 on page 5. In Committee I made an attempt, in which I was learnedly led by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), to get the full significance of these lines fully implanted in the minds of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Baldwin: Have another try.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member invites me to have another try, which I will do, but only to the point of reminding the House that under this Clause the Minister has no power to direct a board to make a change. He cannot use the procedure of a temporary order under Clause 4 to direct a board to reduce the price of a product. The purpose of this provision is to meet the position if the Minister
considers it necessary to take immediate action for the purpose of preventing injury to the public interest from any change made or intended to be made by the board in their course of action.

Mr. Turton: Could the Parliamentary Secretary make it quite clear whether the fixing of the season's prices at the beginning is a change within the meaning of this Bill, or not?

Mr. Brown: Certainly. If it were proposed to increase the price over that which hitherto prevailed, that would, in fact, be a change. If it were intended to say "We will now levy a price which is fourpence more than the price which has prevailed up to now," that would seem to us to be a change which the Minister would have to consider to see whether it infringed the provisions of the Clause and was against the public interest.

Sir T. Dugdale: That has given it away.

Mr. Brown: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that I have given it away, but the point is that what we have tried to get firmly established all along is that when a price is increased a change is involved. I want the Opposition to see

what the effect would be if we were to accept their advice and limit this Clause to scheduled commodities. The mere fact is that if we took horticultural products out of the Clause 4 procedure it could not absolve any Minister of Agriculture, no matter from which side of the House he was drawn, from considering matters of public interest. He would still have to see to it that the board did not do something which was damaging to the general public interest. If, for instance, the board increased the price at the beginning of a season, limited the class of producers from whom a product would be bought or limited the amount of produce that could be sold other than by a certain process, the Minister would have to decide whether it was against the public interest. If he thought so and if he could not use the Clause 4 procedure because.we had limited it to scheduled commodities, he would have to take the line of revoking the board's scheme because, in fact, there would be no other provisions.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Minister could not himself reduce the price. Suppose he objected to the price arranged at the beginning of the season and the board put it down, could the Minister not further push it down?

Mr. Brown: I think not. The position is that we would have to feel that the change made was against the public interest, and that there was some damage to the public interest arising from the change. One hon. Gentleman opposite has told us that if Clause 4 did not apply to horticultural products, the Minister could use Clause 2. The position remains that he could not issue an order under Clause 2 to hold the position while the matter was being investigated. The whole point of Clause 4 is to prevent a continuing public mischief during the time a committee of investigation is inquiring into the whole thing. The hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) said that this power might actually kill the board. It is more likely that if we did not have this power, we might kill the board, when it was a responsible board which, over a long period of time, had built up public confidence, because, without this power, to kill it would be the


only way of preventing a gross act of public mischief taking place.
I now come to the terms of the Amendment, which seeks to omit horticulture from this particular Clause, and I want to make one or two points on it. The first thing is that the Minister's powers to give temporary directions is subject to three major limitations. He must satisfy himself in accordance with Clause 2 (2), he must take immediate action to prevent injury to the public interest, and he, may only direct the board not to make a change, because he cannot direct it to do something new. The board could avoid the need for a temporary direction by giving the Minister adequate notice of any intention to make a change.
The hon. Member for Tonbridge dealt with the question of price. We rather tend to concentrate on it, but that is not the only issue that might be damaging to the public interest. The hon. Member said that the Minister would be meeting this point if he said that the board must fix the price by a certain time. The hon. Gentleman and I had some little correspondence about this matter. For practical reasons the Government found it impossible to say in a Bill that that must be done. The fact remains that it must always lie with the board to say whether Clause 2 procedure only shall operate, if the board will fix its prices or make its changes sufficiently far ahead to give time for Clause 2 procedure to operate, before the actual operation takes place.
We are invited to exclude horticultural products alone, as non-scheduled products. The position must be faced quite clearly. If it is reasonable, as we think it is and as I believe the House as a whole thinks it is, for the Minister to have reserve powers of this kind in order to avoid damage to the public interest, there is no reason to say that such powers are less likely to be needed for horticultural products than for other products. There is as much—there may not be very much—likelihood of damage being done to the public interest because a change is made in that direction, and we cannot hold the position for horticultural products as for any other products. If the Minister had no power to make a temporary direction there might be an unscrupulous board or reckless, to use a kinder term—

Sir T. Dugdale: With a Co-operative member on it?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that the Co-operative member would be a "non-reckless" member of the board, we may take it that that member would be the only one. So far as perishable crops are concerned, the kind of board of which I am thinking might very well exploit the public, knowing full well that the whole crop would be sold before the committee of investigation reported. I have several times said that it would be rather foolish for us to talk as though the producer part of the population were greater than the whole. We want producers to have full opportunity for organisation and development in order to uphold their own position, but there must be in any scheme of this kind adequate power in the hands of the Minister to protect the public interest and to see to it that grave damage is not done while the committee of investigation is looking into a matter.
As we see it, there is no more to this point than that the Minister will not operate this Clause, and cannot operate it, to secure or to bring about a change in a board's practice. He can operate it only to prevent the practice from being changed at such short notice that that change does public damage. It will almost always be for the board itself to decide: "We will suspend the change until the committee of investigation has inquired into it," in which case there is no need for a temporary order; or to make the change sufficiently far ahead so that the Clause 2 procedure can always operate. After that explanation, I hope that hon. Members will see their way to withdraw the Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I intervene to ask one or two questions and for the sake of putting forward an example. Suppose a situation arises in which, owing to marketing circumstances, such as the weather or factors relating to the flow of horticultural products from a European country, or for one reason or another, there is a sudden and considerable scarcity of a particular commodity. A few days later it becomes apparent that we are to have a moderate supply of this horticultural product arising here in Britain from British growers. That


is exactly the situation in which a British grower can gain an enormous advantage. There is a little scarcity, and the British grower has the goods to sell, yet not too much of them. That is exactly the situation in which the grower in a free market can expect to get a pleasant increase in price which will reward him for the losses he has made on other products and which would balance his economy for him. Perhaps it would give him a reasonable return, and it may be a modest percentage of profit on his year's activity as a whole.
It is only by taking the swings and the roundabouts together that farmers can live, in any event. It is not as though all their activities were so abundantly profitable that they must never be allowed to make a shilling on anything with a bit of good luck. [Laughter.] If any hon. Gentleman opposite has been a farmer or a horticultural grower he knows that it is the slice of luck that comes along now and then, on the carnations or on the onions or whatever it may be, that keeps him from going "down the drain."
What is the purpose of these powers? Are they primarily to protect the consumer from being exploited, as was constantly said to be the case from the other side? Are they for the purpose of trying to get a fair deal for the farmer and the grower? Or are the Government just going to escape from that dilemma by saying, "Of course, they are for both"? If we are not to allow a board to adjust prices at short notice in order—I say this advisedly—to take advantage of a sudden shortage that appears and in order to enable the horticultural grower to get a better price and to get it from the consumer, and moreover to get it before the foreigner comes in, I cannot see the use of the board to the horticulturist, and I would try to scrap the boards. I want the Minister to explain whether the boards are for the purpose of preventing a producer taking advantage of a given market situation to make a reasonable profit on one commodity, and whether the Government are so afraid of anybody making a profit on anything that they are deliberately making sure that that cannot happen?

Mr. Snadden: I should like to add a word on this matter from the Scottish

point of view, because this is a very important part of the Bill. I was astonished in the Committee proceedings to hear it suggested that this part of the Bill would not affect the producers. From the point of view of Scotland this is the one Clause to which our producers take exception. I shall not go through all the arguments, many of which have already been repeated here, but I would say that we are forgetting that the Minister may be wrong.

Mr. T. Williams: That is quite easy.

Mr. Snadden: He may take a decision and serve a temporary direction upon a board, and it may be wrong, and there will be no redress for the producers. The Parliamentary Secretary made out a case about consumer interest and prices. We are very concerned about prices. If prices had been taken properly into account we should not be in the meat muddle that we are in today. It is because we have not looked far enough ahead in that sphere that we find ourselves in the present position.
I agree straight away on the first count, which is that if the right hon. Gentleman is responsible in regard to prices under the Schedule of the Act of 1947, by all means let him take those powers into the Bill, because he has that responsibility. I cannot think how it can be maintained that where the Government run away from the responsibility in regard to prices they should still be able to impose upon a board other prices, against the calculations of a board who were elected because they are experts in their own sphere. I cannot imagine any producers' marketing board of the type pictured by the Parliamentary Secretary. He threw up a picture of an organisation of people who were expert in their own particular line, and he led us to believe that they might do some wild thing that would cause the Minister to step in. If we are going to get that, heaven help us, but from my knowledge of these boards we can be safe in assuming that we shall have on them people who know their job.
I am concerned here with the loss which will fall upon the producer because of a decision taken by the Minister which is found by a committee of investigation to be wrong. Unless we can


be given some assurance that in such an event compensation will be payable to the producer in respect of such loss, we are bound to vote for the Amendment. We are not voting against the other Clause for the simple reason that the Minister has taken the responsibility of guaranteeing the price to the consumer. However, I do not see how the Minister can make out a case for serving a direction which may cause serious loss to the producer when in the end it may be found that the Minister was wrong in taking such a decision.

Mr. Tolley: The hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I Fraser) exposed the Opposition's case, rather unfortunately for them. The important point which he stressed was that in the event of a shortage of a commodity some body should have the sole right to send the prices rocketing at the expense of the consumer. All hon. Members, and particularly hon. Members on this side of the House, wish to be fair to both producers and consumers. I believe that the object of the Clause to be as stated in the following passage:
Where…the Minister, if he considers it necessary to take immediate action for the purpose of preventing injury to the public interest.
What is wrong with giving the Minister power to do this if after due consideration he is convinced that injury is being done to the general public by a decision of a board?

Sir I. Fraser: If it is a case of a willing buyer paying a price for the commodity he wants, where is the injury?

Mr. Tolley: If the hon. Member is referring to a national interest, I am not concerned about willing buyers, but I am concerned about fair play to the consumer, and the willing buyer who buys at a high price has to pass that price on to the consumer, which may create great injustice. What is the idea behind the proposed rejection of this Clause? It can only be that in the event of an injustice being done by a board to any section of the public, the board shall be allowed to get away with it. I believe that any Minister will only use this Clause in an emergency, when he believes that an injustice is being done. Because of that, I ask the Minister to reject the Amendment.

The general public have a right to be protected like anybody else. All sections of the general public will regard these provisions in a common-sense manner because they ensure that justice will be done to both the consumer and the producer.

Mr. Baldwin: I want to refute the statement of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Tolley) that the idea behind the Amendment is that we want to exploit the public. That is not at all what we want to do. All the boards which have been formed have protected the consumers on all occasions. The only times when prices rocket sky high is when the consumers send them sky high; it is not the producer who sends them sky high. If there is a "short" season, the consumers send prices sky high. We are satisfied that with a marketing board, prices should not go rocketing sky high. At the same time, we want to see that when prices get "on the floor" the producer and his workers shall have a right to live. That is all we want. As to prices going sky high, as a producer I have no interest in selling a few hundredweights of a commodity when I have a very short supply. No matter what the price is, the return will not be worth while. What I am interested in is a reasonable price when the crop is worth while, and that is where the marketing board can see that the producer and the consumer get fair play.
I am obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary because on three occasions now he has tried to clear my simple mind about the operation of Clause 4. I hope that the Minister will agree with me on this point. When I talk about the operation of an Act I like to apply it to a commodity with which the Act deals. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that price was not the only thing which could be dealt with under Clause 4. I quite agree that it is not, but it is the important thing which has to be dealt with under Clause 4, important to both consumer and producer. The producers would have no quarrel with the Minister if at a time of short supply he directed that a commodity was to be sold on the consumers' market rather than to be sold for processing. There would not be any quarrel if the Minister directed that a commodity should be sent to a part of


the country which was short of that commodity. Therefore, there is nothing which is likely to cause a quarrel, except price.
It has been reiterated that under Clause 4 the Minister has no right to alter a price unless it is a price which is going to be changed. I want the Minister to take this illustration. We will assume that a marketing board for soft fruits has been in existence for two years. We will take one commodity, plums. In the season of 1947, owing to a very short crop the price of plums was fixed at, say, 6d. a pound. No change had been made. At the start of the 1948 season the prospects are that there will be a good crop of plums. The marketing board make no alteration in the price. Does the Minister suggest that he has no power to say to that board, "Look here, 6d. a pound was all right on a short crop but you must put the price down to something less than 6d. now that you have a big crop"?

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has had his attention drawn to lines 30 to 34 of page 5 of the Bill on two or three occasions. If he will be good enough to look at those lines again, he will see that it is transparently clear that the Minister has no power to make a direction to any board unless a change is being made. He has no power to direct the board what to do; he can only tell the board what not to do.

Mr. Baldwin: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; that clears the air. I want to ask the consumers on the other side of the House, who have made a big fuss about the producers exploiting the consumers, what they have to say about that. That is a case where, if the board is not prepared to lower the price when a crop is abundant, it should be compelled to do so in the interests of the consumers. The Minister says he has no power to do it. Then he should take power to do it.

30 p.m.

Mrs. Manning: May I point out that the consumers have the power in their own hands to prevent that? They need not buy. [HON. MEMBERS: "They always have had it."] Yes, but particularly when plums are plentiful, if any board tried to

charge 6d. a lb. for them they would soon find in the normal way that the consumer would not buy them.

Mr. Baldwin: Then we are coming to the law of supply and demand. Is that what the House wants to operate? Because that is what hon. Members opposite have been trying to stop throughout the whole of their tenure of office. We want this quite clear. As a producer, I do not want to exploit the consumer, but I do not want the consumer to exploit me and my men—because our workers are in this as well as ourselves—and if the Minister has not the power under Clause 4 to put down the price when there is a big crop, and the board refuses to do so, then power should be given to the Minister. I am prepared to argue that later when we discuss the question of consumers' councils.
I am obliged to the Minister for having made that clear, and I hope consumers on that side of the House, who are always quite prepared to make a fuss when the price of anything goes sky-high and are never prepared to say anything when it comes down, will remember that.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Tolley) made a defence of this Clause. The fairest way to answer him is to quote the speech made by his own colleague, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) who, curiously enough, is not here tonight—

Mr. Tolley: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me—

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member had better hear first and then he can answer. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk said:
What is the real effect which this Clause will have on the harmonious working of a board? Will people serve on a board if they are not entirely trusted to do the work?…I see the danger in the Minister taking these particular powers…It seems to me that once the boards start to work…a Clause of this description will become a dead letter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 10th February, 1949, c. 71.]
That really is the case against this Clause. It is condemned by every body of producers in the country, and I believe that if the consumers see what is in the Clause they will regard it as an insufficient and unfair way of dealing with


their problems. If a board is out to exploit the public, then the best thing the Minister can do is to sweep that board away, because the intention of having the board is not to do that. The board should be the link drawing the producers and the consumers closer together. When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says, "After all, Clause 4 is a great concession for it will stop the board being wiped out by an angry Minister," surely he is forgetting the purpose of this Agricultural Marketing Act? An exploiting board should be swept away, but not hamstrung, so that it has no value.
If a price is fixed that, in the Minister's view, is unreasonable, there is already the procedure under Clause 2, where the committee of investigation will examine that price. The Minister told us at an earlier stage that a matter of price could be dealt with quickly by the committee of investigation in certain cases. This Clause gives him power to prejudge an issue while a committee of investigation are considering the problem, and that is something quite foreign to the system of monopolies and restrictive practices legislation that we have passed in this House. No other commodity is subject to this power of the Minister to prejudge the issue. In the whole gamut of commodities dealt with by the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act, there is no case that, while a committee of investigation is examining whether something is right or wrong, a Minister can prejudge the issue. That is quite foreign to our system of Parliamentary government and administration.
Now it has come to the defence made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who said, "It is not quite so bad as the Opposition are painting the picture. If there is no change in price, then we are not able to interfere." He tried, I thought rather unsuccessfully, to argue that he was only interested if the change in price was upwards. Quite clearly the wording of this Clause would also include a downward change in price. Therefore in a season of glut following a season of scarcity, the board will only be immune from interference by the Minister if they fail to reduce the price; if they keep to the same price as last season. which was a season of scarcity, then the Minister cannot make this temporary stop order. Surely that makes absolute

nonsense of this procedure. Knowing the ability of the Parliamentary Secretary, I feel sure he would not mislead the House in this, either intentionally or unintentionally, and if that is so then surely the Minister will take this Clause back and redraft it.
I am a producer of guaranteed price commodities. This Clause is unfair to the producers of non-guaranteed price commodities. The large fanner today who is getting his guaranteed price is in a far better position than the smallholders who are producing the unguaranteed price commodities. The vegetable grower, the fruit grower, these men who have no protection, and unfortunately at present are subjected to unreasonable imports put in by the Minister of Food, have not sufficient security. It is that type of case which the Government are hitting under Clause 4. It is the commodities of the small men, who have high costs in labour, material and the price of land, who are being hit especially by Clause 4. I ask hon. Members not to jeer at these men. Hon. Members on the other side have jeered—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Oh, yes. Mr. Speaker, if you had been here at the time, you would have heard the defence put up by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). It aroused the jeers and sneers of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I believe that the men in the horticultural industry need proper protection, and so I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: I want to remove the belief of hon. Members opposite that it must be wrong to raise the price in a period of shortage. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Tolley) appears to think that the sole object of an increase in price during a period of shortage is to make a profit. Of course whoever raises the price in a period of shortage does so simply because there will be less income because there is less to sell although the costs of planting, of applying artificial manures, and all the labour required to produce a crop is probably precisely the same as it would be in a time of glut.

Mr. Tolley: Since the hon. and gallant Gentleman uses that argument, he will concede the right of the board to reduce the price when there comes a glut. Would he concede that?

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: We have never argued against the right—

Mr. Tolley: I am asking a specific question.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: We have never argued against the right. Naturally, what all growers require is a fair return on their outlay. If they have an abundant crop, they accept a lower price; if they have a short crop, then they must have a higher price to cover their expenditure.
I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) that the Clause as it stands is quite ridiculous, because if no change is made in the price the Minister can do nothing about it. If, however, there is a slight change, even downwards, he may think it should go further down still, and can then interfere. As the Bill stands no one can expect a marketing board to have any confidence at all if it is perpetually overshadowed by the Minister, who has the right of veto to destroy any action it may take, whether it is an alteration of price up or down, an alteration for varieties of qualities, or any other alteration it may make. The Minister can give the boards confidence by having confidence in them himself and showing it by removing the Clause from the Bill.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: As a grower myself, I should like to add one or two remarks to what has been said by my hon. Friends. I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary's reply was completely unimaginative, unrealistic and unsatisfactory. I do not think he appreciates even the beginning of the difficulties from which we suffer. Certainly in the instances which he quoted he was utterly unrealistic. He referred to the possibility that a small crop might rocket to a high price and require the immediate intervention of the Minister; but if that sort of thing occurs—in the instance he gave the crop lasts only a few days—the Minister will not be able to intervene in time to make any appreciable difference. In any case the crop, because of its smallness, will affect such a very small number of people that it will not be worth legislative action by the Minister to try to counteract the high price and prevent any exploitation of the public or the consumer, the

avoidance of which, apparently, is the purpose of the Clause.
Then there was the possibility that the crop would be sold within a few days. If it is a small crop, produced at the same expense as is necessary to produce a big crop, it is perfectly right and fair, as has been said already on this side, that the grower should have the benefit of the higher price. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary realised that during most of the past winter, owing to climatic and other conditions, growers have been harvesting their crops at prices which have paid only for the actual harvesting operations. It is quite impossible for growers to continue on that basis.
The number of non-scheduled commodities is of such a wide variety that it is essential for growers to have a considerable elasticity of price and to be able to make up on the swings what they lose on the roundabouts. During the winter months they have, in fact, been losing on the roundabouts. If it is endeavoured, on the specious excuse of protecting the consumer from exploitation, to limit the possibilities of profits on the summer swings, the Government are simply going to put growers right out of business. It is essential that the Government should realise this.
So far as the protection of the grower is concerned, the Government must realise that it is not only the Minister whose voice is likely to be heard on this matter. The hon. Gentleman referred, I thought a little unfortunately from his point of view, to the question of onions.

Mr. G. Brown: Mr. G. Brown indicated dissent.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I apologise, but onions certainly have been referred to. If the Parliamentary Secretary did not mention them it was a very tactful reticence on his part which omitted the reference to them. Onions are a very good illustration of the point I desire to make: the question of what is the public, or the consumer's, interest. If, in fact, the growers have a substantial amount of any non-scheduled commodity to sell and the Government, through a Department other than the Ministry of Agriculture, have entered into a nefarious contract with a foreign country, as a result of which a bargain has been


struck to enable that country to import that particular commodity into this country, it will probably be to the immediate benefit of the consumer, but it will equally be to the immediate detriment of the producer and, therefore, to the ultimate detriment of the consumer.
That is a point of view which the Government must take into account and appreciate. It will be quite impossible for the Minister to sum up in the course of a few days in order to arrive at an immediate decision whether or not to override the board's change of price. If he does so, and it is a short crop, the whole opportunity of disposing of that crop at a price which the board considers to be remunerative to the consumer will have gone, because the crop will have been disposed of before the committee of inquiry can report.
I most urgently ask the Government, therefore, to reconsider this matter on the lines of the Amendment. It does not affect what are called the scheduled commodities, which are of a more lasting character; but to try to deal with details of the non-scheduled commodities is trying to tie up an industry much too tightly. There must be more elasticity and more opportunity of more variation in the price mechanism than the Government seek to allow as the result of Clause 4. Finally, if the Minister retains the power to override the decisions of the board to stultify their activities, it will render it completely impossible for any consumers' board to have the confidence which it is essential for them to have in order to run the business which has been entrusted to them satisfactorily from both the consumer's and the producer's points of view.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We on these benches are prepared to bring our contribution to an end on the various Amendments which we are discussing together and take a decision only on the Amendment which was formally moved earlier in our proceedings. We shall await with very great interest what the right hon. Gentleman has to say in reply to this Debate, for he must know that quite apart from the unanimity of the speeches on this side there was also in the Committee stage a measure of feeling on his own benches that temporary orders might inflict very serious damage on the industry, and particularly on horticulture.

I think the right hon. Gentleman knows also that every producers' organisation in the United Kingdom that has expressed any opinion on this matter has been unanimous in opposing Clause 4.
We shall be particularly interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about some of the observations of the Parliamentary Secretary. I was somewhat surprised at the rather intemperate language used by the Parliamentary Secretary when commending Clause 4 to the House. He talked about the need for temporary orders, to prevent "a continuing public mischief by the board." Later on he talked about "gross acts of public mischief" that might be committed by the board. That might have been the Minister of Health speaking of the 10 million people who voted Conservative at the last election, and not His Majesty's Government speaking of a board that has this afternoon had the rather uncertain acquisition in strength and integrity of an addition from the Co-operative societies, who also, curiously enough, we are told, have 10 million supporters, many of whom, I am glad to think, are not the political supporters of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We shall be very interested to know from the Minister whether he really believes that phrases like that, and the atmosphere of suspicion that they suggest, are likely to start these marketing boards on harmonious lines, and whether it is conceivable that the best people will be ready to serve on boards where these childish restrictions are thought necessary in order to prevent them from committing gross acts of public mischief.
There were other things said by the Parliamentary Secretary on which we should also like some comment by the right hon. Gentleman. The Parliamentary Secretary, in dealing with horticultural and other products, said that it ought to be possible for the board in all cases to give 28 days' warning, so that the Minister could invariably act under Clause 2. Surely the Minister realises that a great many instances arise, particularly of perishable goods such as those of horticulture, where immediate action may be necessary by the board to prevent disaster to the producers and where it is quite impossible to give the Minister the warning which, no doubt, they would like to give. Are they to be


prevented from seeing the result of this immediate action by an emergency order suddenly being imposed on them?
It is true, as the Minister said, that he cannot order a board to reduce prices, but it may be that a modest increase, or a substantial increase, is the only way in which producers can be protected and a board, on which the consumers' interests are well safeguarded, may come to the conclusion that a temporary increase in price is right. There may be a widespread howl from urban consumers, supported, if there is no election pending, by hon. Members opposite and there may be a temporary order, which would throw the whole mechanism into jeopardy.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, as was well pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett), one result of the Clause may be to prevent a board recommending any price reductions at all? The Minister has no power to insist on a price reduction if no change is made, but, if there is a change, however small, the Minister may intervene by temporary order and insist that the whole matter shall be subject to a committee of investigation. Most boards, rather than invoke Ministerial intervention, would make no reduction at all. Then, while there would be no immediate harm to the board, consumers would suffer by prices not being reduced and growers would suffer by the long-term prejudice in which they would be held by consumers who knew that the price could have been reduced.
For all these reasons we feel the right hon. Gentleman should look at the Clause again and use the facilities of another place. One very interesting fact emerged when my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) was speaking of some producers being in a lucky position, having a small amount of some commodity in short supply and getting a better price because it was in short supply and people very much wanted it. There were sniggers from the other side of the House—

Mr. Tolley: The word was "scarcity."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, scarcity. It was suggested that if there was a rise

because of scarcity that would be immoral. It may be, as one of my hon. Friends said, that the reason the price had to rise was because the crop was low but overheads remained the same as if it had been a large crop. Leaving that consideration out altogether, why is a rise in the price of horticultural products immoral while prices can rise in coal, gas, or commodities of other nationalised industries? What is wrong, within modest and well-controlled limits, with a horticulturist, in time of scarcity, getting a little more for his products? When labour is scarce, do not trade unionists try to get higher prices for their labour? Are modest returns for horticulturists very immoral? We are in danger of losing both our perspective and our sense of fairness. [Interruption.] I am quite content to leave the impression of the words I have used to those sound rural constituencies which will, at no long distant date, return unanimously to their old party allegiance.

Mr. G. Brown: The hon. Member had a majority of 1,000 last time.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was 1,800, but the Government are notorious for not being able to count. Our main objection to Clause 4 is that it applies to nonscheduled commodities and we believe this an absolutely irremovable blot. It should be limited to those commodities where the price and crop are guaranteed. We feel the Clause will call a halt to schemes of orderly marketing which both sides of the House want to see mature. With the new trade agreements and this power of the Minister to make economic solutions of their difficulties impossible, the Clause may well prevent us having those marketing schemes for horticulture which we all want to see. We have another Amendment on the Order Paper which, I gather, is not being called, but to which I wish to refer. That is in line 24 to leave out from "Act," to the end of line 29. We believe we are drifting into a situation in which a consumers' committee may make a complaint and, almost automatically, the Minister would issue a temporary order. As I have tried to show, temporary orders have possibly very harmful results and their use should be rigorously circumscribed. One should not follow automatically on the complaint of a consumers' committee, which complaint may


have been started for reasons quite different from those which appear on the face of the complaint itself.
Another Amendment deals with the intended actions of the board. It seems wholly unjustifiable that the Minister should use this temporary procedure to deal with an intended action. When a board announces its intentions he should take action under Clause 2 where he has full powers to carry out the purpose he has in mind. Our last Amendment to the Clause is, in line 33, to leave out from "which," to the end of line 34 and to insert:
would discourage or decrease the productivity of agriculture or would increase imports.
In our view it is probably just that the Minister should have this right if in fact some action of the board has decreased agricultural production, or made further imports inevitable. We recognise that that would be harmful to the public interest as a whole. So far these things have happened more through the actions of Governments than the actions of boards, but we recognise that there is a case here. We dislike Clause 4 for all these reasons but, if the right hon. Gentleman would accept our last Amendment, we would take a slightly more favourable view of his intentions.

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) referred to exaggerated language. There has been some extravagant language during the Debates on Clause 4. Anything my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said must have been correct and I must have agreed with it, because we co-operated quite closely before he made his speech and we understood each other. I am sure he would not say anything with which I did not agree I ought to say in reference to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that the "sneers and jeers" references were not really accurate and, although they may read well in a rural weekly paper they are not really the true version of the House this afternoon.

Mr. Turton: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that when my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) made his speech hon. Members sitting behind the Minister were jeering and sniggering?

Mr. Williams: I would not agree that hon. Members in any part of the House were sneering and I am sure no hon. Member in any part of the House would sneer at the hon. Member for Lonsdale, whatever the subject of his speech may be.

Sir I. Fraser: I am sure no one in any part of the House was suggesting that there was anything personal in the sneering and jeering, but they were sneering at a little man making a profit.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member on the point he has made, but I am satisfied that there was no sneering either at the little man, the big man, the intermediate man or indeed anyone else.
Having referred to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, I should perhaps deal with the point he made before I proceed with the general case. The hon. Member quoted my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye). He carefully chose words from my hon. Friend's speech. I will quote from the same speech. My hon. Friend said:
I cannot help thinking that hon. Members opposite have just about talked their case to death. I agree that there were some doubts in the minds of producers on the need for this particular Clause but, bearing in mind the fact the purpose of any marketing board is to serve the interests of producers and consumers by giving better service to consumers, better supplies, qualities and grading, I think that the consumers require to know that the Minister has power to protect the general interests of the country as a whole.
That was the feeling of my hon. Friend when he intervened.

Mr. Turton: Will the Minister go on and read what the hon. Member said as recorded in column 71?

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member wishes me to do so, I will. My hon. Friend continued:
The marketing boards should not be used greatly to enrich producers beyond what is reasonable, and I think consumers as a whole want that assurance in giving these powers for producers to be organised under marketing boards.
That was the substance of my bon. Friend's speech.

Mr. Turton: I asked the Minister to quote what the hon. Member said, as


printed at the top of column 71, where he made an entirely different speech.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member was quite entitled to quote the latter part of my hon. Friend's speech. I am equally entitled to quote from my hon. Friend's speech, as recorded at the bottom of column 70:
I think that the explanation given by my right hon. Friend in the early part of his speech meets that particular case, in view of the fact that it is only when a board is wanting to raise its price that he can take action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 10th February, 1949; c. 70.]
What are the facts, as briefly as I can state them? The producers are given certain statutory powers which ought to be to their advantage, powers which would restrain any blackleg from knocking the bottom out of prices when there happened to be a glut season or any other kind of season. I submit that those powers could not be given without some safeguards for the general public. If a board acts contrary to the public interest the Minister can, and this is important, at present revoke a scheme operated under the First Schedule (6) of the Act of 1931. It is not merely the case that he can give a direction to stop the board for a few days; he can completely revoke the scheme. That is a very drastic power, as undiscriminating as it would be irrevocable. The board might have been in existence for years, have done much constructive work, won the confidence of producers and acquired large assets. Yet, without Clause 4, if the Minister considered they were making a mistake, he could revoke the order completely, and the whole scheme would crash.
I said in the Standing Committee that Clause 4 was as much in the interest of the producers as in the interest of the consumers. Hon. Members did not like my observations since they did not understand it. It is perfectly true. I am convinced that any marketing, board who have a scheme going and going well, would much prefer Clause 4 to operate than leave themselves in the hands of the Minister, who might completely revoke their scheme and put them almost completely out of business overnight. Yet that is the only power which the Minister has at the moment if he thinks that

action is necessary. That power has never been used and is not likely to be used. It is, however, essential that the power should be there. What is more, no one has, since 1933, suggested that this power was either arbitrary or undemocratic.
Clauses 2 and 4 have a more general purpose, and if occasion should arise it is clearly in the interests of producers that we should use those powers rather than the drastic power to which I have just referred. These clauses limit the Minister's action to certain particular issues which form part of Clause 2 (2). On this the Minister would be advised by an independent body, whose findings would be published. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) that if the time factor permitted Clause 2 procedure would be the ideal. But Clause 4 is necessary if short-term emergency action has to be taken. There is the case of perishable produce, such as soft fruit, vegetables, etc., the marketing season of which is comparatively short, extending over only a few weeks. If ill-considered or hasty action was taken which would prejudicially affect the marketing of any particular crop, the whole season's crop could be sold in a few weeks' time, and if there was any damage the maximum damage would be done.
The Minister can intervene if it appears to him that proposed action by a marketing board could, according to Clause 2 (2) restrict the purposes for which the product could be used, could limit the quantity to be sold and could regulate the price and could limit the classes of persons
to whom or through the agency of whom…
it could be sold. Those are wide extensive powers, any of which could have harmful results on traders, consumers and indeed the public generally. Therefore the Minister has power to give a direction to prevent or—I ask hon. Members please to note—to postpone that particular contemplated change. The matter can be submitted to a committee of investigation. Only on the guidance received from that committee the Minister would act. Without this "stop action" the season would be over and the maximum damage would be done.
If on the other hand the committee of investigation found that the Minister was wrong the maximum injury that could be inflicted would be that that particular change would only be deferred for one year. It may be that if one looks at a particular commodity one year seems a long time. The point I wish to make is that the Minister has no power to give a direction telling a board to do anything. It is only when the board have made a change or contemplate making a change that the Minister has any power whatever. I cannot help but feel that hon. Members opposite have failed to appreciate the full significance of lines 30 to 34, which have been quoted so often.
It should be noted that orders under Clause 4 are subject to a negative resolution. If the board, following upon the Minister's direction desire to do so, they could arrange for the matter to be prayed against in this House, and the Minister would have to justify his action. Knowing the fervency with which hon. Members opposite like to pray, I can assure them that I should be careful before I allowed them to indulge in one more Prayer against me.
I said that if the time factor permitted, Clause 2 procedure is definitely the ideal. I suggest that it rests with a marketing board to decide whether the time factor will permit or not by giving ample notice of any intended change, so that Clause 2 procedure could operate. If a board desired to make far-reaching changes, say the following summer, and assuming the board had been in existence for a year or two, they could give notice during the winter of their contemplated change. If there were any objections by traders or any other section of the community the Minister could consider them. They might or might not be frivolous. If they were regarded as substantial then the Minister could have them considered by a committee of investigation. A decision could be taken long before the actual harvesting. Absolutely no damage would accrue to the producers.
I recognise, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford suggested upstairs, that in the case of perishable vegetables, soft fruits and so forth, with the best will in the world one could not always avoid some little damage. But when the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin)

refers to plums, he fails to appreciate that Parliament is giving to producers the right to organise the marketing of any one of their products. That marketing board will have to do with something more than merely the fixing of prices. If they are well in their saddle they will know that occasionally, thanks to weather conditions, there may be a shortage or a glut. They will do more than is done at the moment in a year of shortage or glut. They will organise a collection from the orchards, farms and so forth. Presumably they will have collecting centres for grading, packing and preparation for market. They will know exactly how, consistent with the public interest, to release supplies to all markets so that everybody will get a reasonable share and the producer will not have to lose his price. We are giving that power which is very substantial and which I hope producers will use.
An hon. Member said that it might take months for a committee of investigation to look into a case, whereas the season is only of a few weeks duration. I would point out that there was one occasion when the committee of investigation were called in to examine a complaint and they only took 1½hours to deal with it. It may well be that that could happen again and there would be no damage at all. The point I wish to emphasise is that I recognise that there is a difference between the procedure under Clause 2 and that under Clause 4. But if a marketing board, once they were well in the saddle, gave ample notice of any desired change, then the Minister in his wisdom, if any, would decide whether or not the change was desirable. Clause 2 procedure would be used for the purpose long before the article was ready for market. Again, the Board could avoid the need for the use of Clause 4 procedure simply by agreeing to suspend action for the time being. Then Clause 4 would not commence to operate.
All sorts of funny things have been said about this Clause—fancies, dreams and imaginary possibilities and improbabilities. I hope that I have said sufficient to show that it is a necessary public safeguard. I hope, and I am sure that all hon. Members hope, that producers will use the statutory powers we are giving to them. Once a number of marketing


schemes come into existence and their value is appreciated not only by the producer but by the consumer, I am convinced that on the odd occasion where there may be a momentary conflict we can do no better and no less than leave

the matter to the good sense of the members of the marketing board and of the Minister at that time.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 157.

Division No. 94.]
AYES
[7.16 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Harden, J. R. E.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Birch, Nigel
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bower, N.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hurd, A.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Butcher, H. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Smithers, Sir W.


Challen, C
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Snadden, W M


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stuart, Rt. Hon J (Moray)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Studholme, H. G


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


De la Bere, R.
McFarlane, C. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Touche, G C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turton, R H.


Donner, P. W.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Panrith)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Walker-Smith, D.


Drewe, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ward, Hon. G. R


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maude, J. C.
White, J. B (Canterbury)


Duthie, W. S.
Medlicott, Brigadier F
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mellor, Sir J
York, C.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Molson, A. H. E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)



Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Odey, G. W.
Commander Agnew and


Gates, Maj. E. E.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Major Conant.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Keenan, W.


Attewell, H. C.
Deer. G
Kenyon, C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Celargy, H. J.
Key, Rt Hon C. W.


Awbery, S S
Diamond, J.
Kinghorn, Sun.-Ldr. E


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Dodds, N. N.
Kinley, J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, F. (Halme)


Balfour, A.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Leslie, J R.


Barstow, P. G.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Longden, F


Barton, C.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McAdam, W.


Battley, J. R.
Farthing, W J.
McAllister, G.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McLeavy, F.


Benson, G.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bottomley, A. G.
Glanville, J E. (Consett)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mainwaring, W. H


Braddock, Mrs E. M (L'Pl. Exch'ge)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Guest, Dr L. Haden
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)
Guy, W. H.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Brown, George (Belper)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Messer, F.


Brown, T J. (Ince)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Monslow, W.


Burden, T. W.
Hardy, E A.
Moody, A. S.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Harrison, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Chater, D
Haworth, J.
Naylor, T. E.


Cluse, W. S
Herbison, Miss M.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Cobb, F A
Hobson, C. R.
Orbach, M.


Cocks, F S.
Holman, P.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Coldrick, W.
Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Collick, P
Houghton, A L. N D
Palmer, A. M. F.


Cooper. G.
Hudson, J H (Ealing, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Parker, J.


Crossman, R. H. S
Hynd, H. Hackney, C.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Ruchcliffe)


Daggar, G.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Daines, P.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pearson, A.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pearl, T. F.




Popplewell, E.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Warbey, W. N.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Shurmer, P.
Weitzman, D.


Pursey, Comdr. H.
Silverman, J. (Erdignton)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Ranger, J.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
West, D. G.


Reeves, J.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wheatley, Rt. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Smith. S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Rhodes, H.
Snow, J. W.
Wigg, George


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Steele, T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Symonds, A. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Taylor, R. J. (morpeth)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)
Taylor, Dr, S. (Barnet)
Wills, Mrs E. A.


Rogers, G. H. R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Thurtle, Ernest
Yates, V. F.


Royle, C.
Tolley, L.



Sargood, R.
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Wilkins.

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page 6, line 2, to leave out "six," and insert "four."
This Amendment is put forward to meet the point of view which was expressed rather strongly during the earlier stages of the Bill. I hope I may be able to explain the reasons for it because, on the face of it, it looks just like a compromise, but is in fact rather more than that. I also hope that I shall be able to avoid the temptation of using intemperate language. The purpose of the Amendment is to substitute a period of four months for one of six months as the maximum duration of a temporary order, which we have recently been discussing. The period of six months was originally proposed because it was felt that, normally, it would be sufficient to cover three things—the period of 28 days from the date on which the Minister has given the board notice of intended directions, the period of the committee of investigation invoked by the board, and also the period for the preparation of Clause 2 orders and the consultations that have to take place.
We were proposing to reduce that period to a shorter time, and it was suggested that two months might be sufficient. We have looked into the matter, and it seems to us that we can reduce the period to four months if we take account of the first and third of the three stages which I have just mentioned. We must have a temporary order that covers the 28 days' notice which the Minister must give, and it must also clearly cover the period during which the preparation of a Clause 2 order is taking place and of the consultations with the board. We think that that will provide for the position, since there is, in any case, a proviso that the order can be extended if the

publication of the board's decision does not give us the necessary time to go on with the preparation of the order and for the necessary consultations. We hope, therefore, that we are able to meet the points of view which have been expressed to the extent of substituting four months for six.

Sir T. Dugdale: The Government, when considering this point, instead of meeting us half-way, would have dealt with it much more satisfactorily if they had gone the whole way and come to our conclusion in favour of two months. When we put forward our arguments, we were mindful of the proviso, which in fact does extend the period, quite apart from the six months which was originally provided. It would appear that, even now, with the concession made by the Government in reducing the period from six months to four, in consequence of the proviso, the real result will be a period of seven months—four months plus three months—because the proviso really extends the time by another three months. I hope the House will agree that this does provide an ample time for the temporary order to be in operation. We are grateful to the Government for looking into the point, we are thankful for small mercies and we accept the period of four months which the Government now propose.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5.—(THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE.)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 7, line 3, at the end, to insert:
(c) Wherever it is reasonably possible the place of hearing shall be reasonably near to the place of business or residence of the said producer.


The object of this Amendment is to ensure that meetings of the disciplinary committee, wherever it is reasonably possible, shall take place near to the place of business or residence of the producer. The House will, perhaps, realise that we are now dealing with the pains and penalties that may be imposed by the board on members who have broken some of the regulations, and for this purpose disciplinary committees are being set up. It is rather hard in certain instances if all these committees invariably meet in London, and we have had in the past in our experience of the marketing boards instances of some very difficult situations.
The Milk Marketing Board was very bad indeed, and produced a host of reasons for never meeting anywhere but in London. Producers concerned had to suffer great inconvenience in coming to London when they had to attend the meetings of the Board. The Bacon Board was pretty bad, but nothing like as bad as the Milk Marketing Board. The only good board was the Potato Board, which in the year up to its last report contrived to have some 15 or 16 out of 40-odd meetings outside London, some in Scotland and some in other parts of the country. Now we are dealing with the disciplinary committees before which offenders may be summoned, and we think it is desirable that, wherever it is reasonably possible, these inquiries should take place in the localities concerned.
We have taken the words of our Amendment from the Falmouth Report, which is constantly called in aid by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the fact that we are using words which appear in that Report, for which no praise can be too high, will I hope commend the Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman. On the Committee stage, we sought to make it mandatory, but we have now included the words, as used in the Falmouth Report, "wherever reasonably possible." It is particularly hard in the case of people running one-man businesses when a defaulter has to come to London to answer certain charges, when he has to leave his agricultural or horticultural interests with no one to look after them. It is additionally hard upon the defaulter because he may not know the exact details of what he has done wrong until he comes to London, and the board's complaints

against him are put to him fully for the first time. It might be that, in his answer to the complaints, his friends and neighbours in his locality might be able to assist him, or he might wish to have with him documents or papers which he has not brought to London, but which, in the circumstances proposed by our Amendment, would be available to him.
There is one further argument. In the old days, even the High Court of Parliament used to travel around, though for different reasons, and it did not confine itself to meetings in London. It sometimes met in York and sometimes in Oxford. Now that the High Court of Parliament has stripped itself of so much power and given it to various boards, it seems reasonable that the boards should also have to do a little travelling. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, if he answers me—and, if he is to answer me, it is desirable that he should listen to me—will not use the argument that was used in Committee upstairs. On that occasion he said that if somebody had had a penalty imposed upon them at a meeting of the board in London, and it had been suggested that the meeting should take place near his place of residence, then the man might be able to upset the decision. I do not think a fine argument of that kind will commend itself to the whole House. It did not have a very good reception in a small Committee upstairs and I am sure that in the fuller light of day, and on the Floor of this House, it will not be found to hold water. If the right hon. Gentleman or his Parliamentary Secretary do not intend to accept our Amendment, I hope they will apply their ingenious minds to a slightly better excuse than the one given on the Committee stage.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown: I am afraid I intend to embark upon this slightly fine argument which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) finds rather disconcerting, probably because, despite its fineness, it is too strong for him on this Amendment. We are in complete sympathy with the idea that these disciplinary cases should not be run in such a way that the small business man has to be brought from all parts of the country to London. Indeed, one of the things for which we hope from the appoint-


ment of these smaller disciplinary committees is that it will be possible to take the committees to centres in the country rather than make everybody come to London or wherever it might be.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford made some point of the fact that his Amendment now includes words which are in the Falmouth Report, but with great respect to him—and he has held Office similar to that which I now hold—it must be appreciated that there is a difference between including words like "reasonably possible" in the Report of a body and including the same words in the law on which legal decisions are to be tested in a court of law. The interpretation of the words:
reasonably near to the place of business
would almost certainly, it seems to us and to our advisers, form the basis of an attempt to upset decisions of the disciplinary committee. That is our opinion, despite the fact that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford does not like that argument. Decisions on the facts might well be absolutely justifiable, but if a man could say that "near to the place of business" means the next village and not this one, that could easily lead to interminable arguments.
I resist the Amendment, first, on the ground that it is not sufficiently precise. Indeed, it is beyond our power, or the power of those on the other side, to devise an Amendment which will, in fact, be sufficiently precise. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford quoted from the Falmouth Report, but one of his sins, which lies so heavily or so lightly on the Opposition generally, was that he quoted only that part of the Report which suited his purpose. Had he read other parts of the Report he would have known, as indeed he does know, that the Committee itself pointed out that local hearings would not always be possible. Once that is accepted we are faced with the difficulty of framing the law in such a way as to do any more than we are doing now—that is, to make the disciplinary committee sufficiently small and mobile that it can go out into the country. Everybody knows that is the intention and I think it is unnecessary to go any further.
There is another point. If a producer involved in a case of this kind, with charges brought against him, thinks that the place of hearing to which he has been

asked to go is farther away than he ought to go, he can refuse to go before the disciplinary committee and can ask that the matter shall go for arbitration. The Amendment is unnecessary in any case, because if the action of the disciplinary committee is unreasonable it can be challenged by the producers either individually or collectively. I am sorry that we are unable to accept the Amendment. We certainly want these hearings to be local and it is our intention that they should be local, but we feel that it is impossible to draft the law any better than we have drafted it without running great risk of decisions being upset on mere technicalities. For those reasons we ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am not sure that the Parliamentary Secretary has convinced himself of his own case. I rise only to say that there are further stages before this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and to ask the Government, in that time, to think again. The Parliamentary Secretary started by saying that he accepted the principle of the Amendment and he ended by saying the same thing. The only difficulty seems to be the legal interpretation of the words "if reasonably possible." My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) is not in the least tied to those words. They were put in at this stage, following the invitation by the Government during the Committee stage, because they happen to be words used in the Falmouth Report. We had discussions on this point and on another point at the beginning of our business today; it was mentioned when we were dealing with a new Clause.
All we want to make certain is that the people who have to go before a disciplinary committee should be able to go in the most reasonably convenient way and should not be dragged up and down the country over long distances, at great inconvenience to themselves and to everybody else. That is the purpose behind these words. We are not tied to them. This Measure will have further consideration before it returns to this House and I very much hope that the Government will think again and try to find words to meet the point which we both have in mind.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 7 to leave out lines 37 to 42, and to insert:
(3) Every hearing by the disciplinary committee of a board shall be held in public unless the chairman of the committee for special reasons directs that the whole or part thereof shall not be so held.
(4) The chairman of the disciplinary committee of a board may direct that any evidence given at a hearing by the committee shall be given on oath and may for that purpose administer oaths.
This Amendment is intended to meet two points made by the Opposition in the Committee stage. The first dealt with the question of the disciplinary committee conducting its business in public. The second was the question of allowing the chairman to take evidence on oath. We have conceded both points and, therefore, I feel there is no need for me to waste the time of the House by enlarging upon them.

Sir T. Dugdale: We are satisfied and I thank the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(ABOLITION OF MARKET SUPPLY COMMITTEE.)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 11, line 21, at the beginning to insert "If."
The next three Amendments go together and it would be for the convenience of the Committee, therefore, if with this Amendment we discussed the next two:
In page 11, line 22, to leave out from "1933," to the end of line 26, and to insert:
so resolve such committee shall be dissolved but without prejudice to the power of the appointing authority as defined in the said section to appoint a new committee under that section.
In page 17, line 28, column 3, to leave out "three," and to insert "four."
The purpose of the Amendments is to raise once more the position of the Market Supply Committee. At a time when lack of co-ordination between the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture has never been more apparent, and when its consequences are being felt in every home in our rural districts, it seems a great pity to deprive ourselves of any of those bodies which

can advise harassed officials and embarrassed Ministers of the progress of home crops and the need or otherwise for allowing any foreign imports. We have framed the Amendments in such a way as to give the Market Supply Committee power to dissolve themselves on the Minister's orders, if that is wished, and to be reformed later without any amending Bill. In the Committee stage the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Market Supply Committee which gave information on production and advice on imports, was no longer necessary because now there is a single Government Department responsible for food policy. If by that Department he means the Ministry of Food, that is certainly not an answer which will give any satisfaction or confidence to home agriculturists, nor, as tomorrow's Debate may show, very much confidence to the English housewife either.
We have had recently two treaties, the Polish and Dutch Treaties, dealing with horticultural products. I should not be in Order in labouring those treaties now, but the Market Supply Committee in a case of this kind would be just the body to warn the Government that owing to existing home production and the way our crops were coming along the quantity of imports allowed for in those treaties were harmful to home production. Had there been a body of this kind effectively functioning and consulted on recommendations made public and known to consumers and producers alike, I do not think the Government would have entered into some of their recent international agreements.
They certainly would not, for example, in the case of Holland, if there had been a Market Supply Committee, contracted this year to take more tomatoes from Holland than Holland even produced last year, thereby creating a new industry for Holland, and at a time when our own people are in very great difficulties. While we are strongly in favour of playing our part as a partner in Western Union, we do believe that it is possible to guide competing nations into channels which are complementary to our own agriculture and not consistently competitive, and in a field of this kind, a Market Supply Committee would be of great practical assistance.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman in reply may call in aid the fact that this committee, which did exist before the war, has not achieved any very particularly useful purpose. I realise that the Supply Committee was set up to deal only with commodities that were covered by marketing schemes—hops, pigs, bacon, potatoes, and milk; and, of course, in all those various commodities there was little danger from imports. The real danger they had to face was over-production at home at that particular time. The reason, therefore, why the marketing schemes had little to do was because there were few imports. It would have been different if marketing schemes had been operating over commodities in which there was a competition from foreign imports.
Incidentally, the Parliamentary Secretary—I think I quote his words aright—said in Committee that the Government had no shortage of advice, and what was wanted was power of prophecy, or words to that effect; there was plenty of advice, he said, but how could we know whether there would be a much greater production from every single acre in England in this or any year. I think al the time he was talking about potatoes, or possibly onions. While it is perfectly true that the yield last year was very different from what it had been the year before, I know that in my part of the country—and it is probably the case throughout the United Kingdom—we have Ministry officers whose task it is to follow up the census of the cropping programme, and to see month by month how the home crops are coming along. If that is so, the Government at every stage have plenty of indications of the stages of home production. If this work could be complemented by the Market Supply Committee which could publish the consensus of opinion as to what is to come from all over the country, the Government would not be able to enter into these ill-timed arrangements on the plea that they do not know what the supply of home agriculture was to be.

Mr. Baldwin: I can add very little to the arguments put forward so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) or to the arguments used upstairs in Committee. There is one thing that has happened since the Committee finished its work. It has become more important than ever in

the opinion of the producers that there should be a Market Supply Committee. We have seen trade agreements made, and we do feel that there should be some body which has more knowledge of production in this country to tender advice to the Government when trade agreements are being made. It has been said that the Market Supply Committee did not function. Provision for it was reinserted in the 1933 Act after its omission in the 1931 Act, because it would be helpful in giving information to the Government, about imports, and so on. The Market Supply Committee is more important today. It is important from the short-term point of view and it is important from the long-term point of view, for when imports have to be regulated we must have liaison. The interests of the producers as well as of the consumers must be considered.
7.45 p.m.
The Ministry of Food, the Parliamentary Secretary said, is responsible for nutrition. It is quite impossible for the Minister of Food to keep an open mind on this matter. He has declared on more than one occasion that it is his intention to buy in the cheapest market on behalf of the consumers. We say that if he is to be the Minister responsible, it is a thin look out for the producers. I would remind the Minister of Agriculture again that the Lucas Report called attention to the fact that no marketing board could operate that did not regulate imports or help the Minister in regulating imports. Surely that should not be left to the Minister of Food, but should be left to an advisory committee such as the Market Supply Committee.

Mr. G. Williams: I could speak long enough to fill several pages of HANSARD telling about the onions position and how it could have been avoided if we had had a Market Supply Committee. Indeed, I could do exactly the same about potatoes, and that has already been done in a Debate on the Adjournment a short time ago. I shall not weary the House with that now, but I would impress upon hon. Members that a Market Supply Committee would have avoided the troubles we have had over onions and potatoes and, furthermore, over the new Dutch Agreement which has just been agreed by the present Government and which I may describe as the ruin of some


of the horticulturists of this country. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument why we could not have this Market Supply Committee is that we have the Ministry of Food, and that it does the job. He said that a few weeks ago in Committee when the relations between the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture were bad enough, but by now I should say, the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture are scarcely on speaking terms. I am not surprised. I am on the side of the Minister of Agriculture, and I am quite sure that if I were in his position, I should not be on speaking terms with the Minister of Food. It is, however, of vital importance, if we cannot get proper co-operation between the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture, that we should have the Market Supply Committee to help and advise. If we have a committee, the Minister need not take its advice, but he can listen to it. For that reason I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. T. Williams: I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment so ably moved by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). Hon. Members opposite do not seem to like the Ministry of Food, but they cannot blame me for that. I am sure the hon. Member would not wish me to accept the first of this group of Amendments, for it says in effect, "If the Market Supply Committee decides for itself to put itself out of business." If anybody is to decide whether we are to have a Market Supply Committee or not, it should be the Minister and not the Market Supply Committee.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is just possible—I do not want to encroach upon the functions of the Chair—that we could not have discussed this at all if we had not put the Amendment down somewhat in this form.

Mr. T. Williams: I rather suspected that the hon. Gentleman only wanted a discussion. The point is that under Sections 1 and 2 of the 1933 Act it was made possible, when the agricultural Ministers were responsible for regulating home production and the import of food, to get what advice they could from the then Market Supply Committee. I imagine that at that time they had an important

function to perform, which they performed. They have been out of existence for many years, and the Ministry of Food has come into existence. As we see things at present, it is likely to be in existence for quite a long time. Clearly, it is the obligation of the Ministry of Food to provide the nation with home produced and imported food to stand up to our nutrition policy. Therefore, the only function which the Market Supply Committee would have at the moment would be not to give advice or guidance to the Ministry of Food but to give advice to the Ministry of Agriculture, and it seems to me that that function would be absolutely useless. It would be unworthy of any Minister to appoint a Market Supply Committee exclusively to advise the Ministry of Agriculture.
With regard to market intelligence, it is quite clear that the Ministry of Agriculture have their market intelligence bodies all over the country, and we know week by week and month by month how crops are progressing. I do not think there is anything that the Committee could tell us on that score. In view of the transformation that has taken place—the establishment of the Ministry of Food and the lack of real duties for the Market Supply Committee—I do not see why we should keep this body in existence without functions. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will not press the Amendment.

Sir T. Dugdale: We had a long Debate on this subject upstairs in Committee, and we have had a shorter Debate today. In Committee we tried to help the Government by suggesting that they might add to the Market Supply Committee two members appointed by the Ministry of Food. The Government did not like that course. Today we put down a different form of Amendment, again to try to help the Government not to lose this very useful bit of machinery which is in existence now, but which the Government are deliberately doing, away with under this Bill.
What has happened ever since this Bill was introduced? The Bill was introduced shortly before Christmas and debated in this House on Second Reading in January. There was some need even when the Bill was introduced to have some sort of body, whether we called it


a Market Supply Committee or anything else, to advise the Minister on these problems. Sooner or later, the Government will have to take some action. In the last month or so, we have had the Anglo-Polish Agreement and the Anglo-Dutch Agreement. Questions have been put from this side of the House to the Prime Minister because of the uncertainty as to who was responsible for these agreements and whether consultations had taken place. The answers to these questions were entirely unsatisfactory to the whole country.
We see, as the weeks go by, more muddle and more chaos being created because there is no co-operation at all between the production of food in this country and the procuring of food from overseas. That is not, as I see it, a party point. We are here to try in the national interest to help the Government, and somebody, some day, and very soon in the interests of the nation, has to face up to this position and not allow this extraordinary situation to develop, as it is developing today.
I know perfectly well that the Minister of Agriculture—when he comes down to

answer these problems—and his Parliamentary Secretary, say very little. They know, as well as I do, that the lack of co-ordination between the two Departments is doing a great disservice to the nation at the present time and particularly to the consumers in the country about whom we have been talking today. The consumers are the people who, in the end, are the sufferers, and we do not lose any opportunity of trying to bring this very serious state of affairs to the notice of the country, of the Government and of the Minister of Agriculture. So, although it may be that our suggestion as to how we should deal with the Market Supply Committee may easily be improved, yet because of the general proposition underlying our argument and what we believe to be in the general interests of the country, I shall ask my hon. Friends to go into the Division Lobby in support of the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'If' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 143.

Division No. 95.]
AYES
[7.58 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Harden, J. R. E.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Ropner, Col. L.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bower, N.
Hurd, A.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Butcher, H. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smithers, Sir W


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Snadden, W. M.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lucas-Tooth, S. H.
Studholme, H. G.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McFarlane, C. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Touche, G. C.


Donner, P. W
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Turton, R. H.


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Ward, Hon G. R.


Duthie, W. S.
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Odey, G. W.
York, C.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Fraser. Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.



Gage, C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Raikes, H. V.
Commander Agnew and


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Binns, J.
Cluse, W. S.


Alpass, J. H.
Blenkinsop, A.
Cobb, F. A.


Attewell, H. C.
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Cocks, F. S.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Coldrick, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Brook, D.(Halifax)
Collick, P.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Cooper, G.


Bacon, Miss A.
Brown, George (Belper)
Cove, W. G.


Balfour, A.
Brown, T J. (Ince)
Dagger, G.


Barstow. P. G.
Burden, T. W.
Daines, P.


Battley, J. R.
Callaghan, James
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Benson, G.
Chater, D.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)




Deer, G
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rhodes, H.


Delargy, H. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Diamond, J.
Kinley, J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Dodds, N. N
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Longden, F.
Royle, C.


Dumpleton, C. W.
McAdam, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McAllister, G.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McLeavy, F.
Shurmer, P.


Farthing, W. J
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Skinnard, F. W.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mainwaring, W. H
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Greenwood, Rt Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Grierson, E.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Ep[...]ng)
Snow, J. W.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Steele, T.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Lianelly)
Messer, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Guy, W. H.
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tolley, L.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Moyle, A.
Viant, S. P.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Naylor, T. E.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hardman, D. R.
Nichol Mrs, M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Warbey, W N.


Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Harrison, J.
Orbach, M.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Haworth, J
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
West, D. G.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Herbison, Miss M
Palmer, A. M. F.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hobson, C. R.
Parker, J.
Wigg, George


Holman, P.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pearson, A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Peart, T. F.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hynd., H. (Hackney, C.)
Popplewell, E.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Yates, V. F.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pursey, Comdr. H.



Jenkins, R. H.
Ranger, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Keenan, W.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Mr. Collindridge and


Kenyon, C.
Reeves, J.
Mr. Wilkins.


Lords Amendments considered accordingly, and agreed to.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
We have had very many discussions on this Bill as it has gone on its way through the House, and at this stage I do not think I need detain the House any longer to deal again with its provisions.
We on this side of the House are very firmly wedded to the idea of producers' co-operation and producers' marketing schemes. We recall with some pride that it was the Labour Government of 1931, through the present Lord Privy Seal, who in the original Act took steps to enable this to go on. In this Bill we have done a great deal to bring up to date the conception of producers' marketing schemes, to bring them into line with modern thought, and in the future the Minister will have powers to be able to deal with the situation if, as I think is very unlikely, any board should act irresponsibly.
At the same time the Bill widens the powers of, and much of the excellent work done by, for example, the Milk Marketing Board, altogether outside the realm of marketing, such as in the conservation of grass, the improvement of livestock technique, A.I. centres, and the rest; work of that kind will be open to

these boards which have been, and we hope will be, set up. That is all I need say. We have had a good many discussions, in which we have had the benefit of help from hon. Members on all sides, and on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I should like to say how much we appreciate it. I have the very greatest pleasure indeed in asking the House to accord this Bill a unanimous Third Reading.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: There is a specifically Scottish point which I wish to put to the Secretary of State for Scotland, although I do not expect an answer from him tonight. We have had a very long discussion on this Bill, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and I do not propose to go over any of the points that have been made, except to say that from the Scottish point of view we are glad to see that the Government are, apparently at any rate, adhering to the principle of producers' marketing boards. We do not like Clause 4, for reasons that we have already given in this House; nor do I, personally, welcome the abolition of the Market Supply Committee, which I think a very great mistake.
The point I wish to put to the Secretary of State for Scotland is essentially a


Scottish one, and I put it because repeated representations have been made to Scottish Members. It is an extremely technical matter, and I only ask him to look at it again. The question concerns skinners and fellmongers, who have made representations about their very technical sphere of production. Personally, I am not quite clear what their position is, but I should like the Secretary of State to correct me if I am wrong when I say that, if a marketing board is proposed in respect of fleece wool, skinners, if they are excluded from any board, will have the right of representation to the Minister, who will have to appoint a commissioner to go into the whole question of whether or not it is a properly constituted board.
It may be, I think, that the fellmongers and skinners of Scotland, who have to do with one-third of the total wool output, have rather exaggerated their fears on this score; but they have fears, and they have made representations to all of us. I am informed that they are not quite satisfied yet, after what was said in Committee. If the Secretary of State could look at this matter with a view of giving these people proper representation when marketing proposals for wool are put forward, and make some announcement, perhaps in another place, I think he would dispel the fears of a very old industry, and of people who are keen to play their part in wool production.
Having put that point, I conclude by saying that we on this side of the House consider that the Bill has been improved through our discussions. We have not got what we should have liked in every case, and we have divided on various Clauses, but generally speaking we accept the principle of the Bill.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Daines: My enthusiasm for the Bill will be kept well within the bounds of restraint. I am not at all happy about the Bill; and, what is more, I am very unhappy about the forces that have prompted the Minister to bring the Bill before the House. While I grant that the Bill modifies and modernises the 1931 and 1933 Acts, I take the view that the indication of the setting up of boards and the processes which will follow will seriously jeopardise the work of the Government and of the Labour

Party, in particular in formulating a sound policy for distributing the necessities of life to the people. I go further and say that what we are doing is setting up a series of vested interests, which will have a very serious effect when we come to having a properly organised policy for distribution.
I was very interested this afternoon in listening to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) repeatedly revealing what is in his own mind and in the minds of the Opposition. The 1933 Act, in particular, and the 1931 Act, to a limited extent, were introduced at the time of economic scarcity and when the economics of scarcity were the order of the day. I took particular note of what the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford said. He spoke of over-production in the 1930s. Over-production of what? Of food for our people when two million were unemployed and when the bulk of the population were on miserably low wages? That surely reveals the whole thing; the approach that underlay the economics of that time. It is that we should meet unemployment by scaling down production rather than by increasing the purchasing power of our people.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Member must confine himself to what is in the Bill and not go too far back into history.

Mr. Daines: I am afraid that in trying to indicate how this Bill has come into being I may have transgressed. I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, so let us now "Face the future."
The reason why this Bill has been brought forward at this time is because the Minister has on his desk schemes for a marketing board for tomatoes and cucumbers. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford was talking about modest profits, but when I look at the figures for cucumbers and tomatoes, I find, taking 1927 to 1929 as 100, that cucumbers in 1938 stood at 98 points and at 498 points in 1948, whereas tomatoes stood at 100 points in 1938 and are at 284 points in 1948. We had no applications from the glasshouse industry for a marketing board before the war, but we have today, and it has become a matter of urgency. The profits in the glasshouse industry are fantastic, and that is what is behind this demand for a marketing board. It is not to get rid of


the pre-war conditions, but to maintain the same rate of profits by restricting imports and by the removal of the type of safeguards we undoubtedly have from the Minister of Food. The Minister of Food is very much out of court with Members opposite. What are we to have when we get the tomato and cucumber boards? Are we to have tomatoes in season sold at twice the price of tomatoes out of season?
I suggest that the House has to be very careful. We must try to undertsand what is behind this Bill. The House has to understand the powerful pressure that will come when the marketing boards will be formed. Speaking for myself and my friends—I think it is well known that I am associated with the Co-operative movement—we reject the laissez faire approach, but we see in this Bill a giving way to the pressure of powerful interests, which are certainly not Socialist in their operations. During next week we shall face a long tortuous examination of our economic position in relation to Europe and the rest of the world. What is to be the position with France, Italy and other countries that are coming into this new grouping, if we are to prevent them having the opportunity to send foodstuffs to this country which they can produce far more cheaply than this country?
It seems to me that what lies behind this Bill is capitalist syndicalism where, so far as the welfare, high profits and even high wages of one industry are concerned, they are given at the expense of the community. I do not accept it as the function of the Labour Government to formulate policies that give advantages to one section of industry at the expense of the consumer. I look upon this as a reactionary stage in the development of the economy of the country. The Minister has given way to pressure. The road, by this Bill, is clear for steps which I am certain will be shown to be retrograde and against the true interests of the people.

8.17 p.m.

Sir T. Dugdale: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daises). His great dissertation is no doubt what Labour's point of view is in certain parts of the country about its own Government. After that

most interesting speech, there can be no doubt that the hon. Member can only do what he must do, and that is go into the Lobby against his own Government.

Mr. Daines: If I have to do it, I shall take the precaution to shout "No" at the proper time to see it is made effective.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am glad to know that the hon. Member is going to do that, and we shall wait with great interest. As far as we are concerned, we have now reached the final stages of this Bill. We are disappointed that in our long deliberations, the Minister has closed his mind to all the arguments we put before him, particularly in regard to Clauses 4 and 12. I am not going to repeat any of the arguments. After all our discussions, we still have to go back to the Second Reading, when the Minister said he did not propose to use Clause 4 at all. He told us:
No Minister—certainly not 'yours truly'—would fail to feel a sense of deep responsibility in exercising those powers, and a Minister would be reluctant to use them without the strongest possible justification."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1948; Vol. 460, c. 193.]
We are getting used to this argument from the Minister, which is not a satisfactory argument, the argument of putting powers into a Bill which are not intended to be used. We have done our best to get that Clause altered, but without success.
We have just had an interesting, Debate on the marketing and supplies committee, and I will not go over that point again. We think it is a pity that that committee is not to be kept in being in some shape or form, because we think that it would be of help to the Minister in the problems that lie ahead. On the Bill itself, we still hold the view that efficient marketing must be the complement to efficient production. We believe that the best way to achieve efficient marketing is through the medium of producer marketing boards. This Bill brings up to date the 1931 and 1933 Acts, which some of us remember going through the House.
The Amendments which have been made are, we believe, necessary, and we hope that when the Bill becomes law many of these boards will be brought out of cold storage and new ones started for the benefit of efficient marketing, producers and consumers. We are not un-


mindful of what the Minister said on Second Reading, that the Bill has only a limited purpose and does not in any way prejudice the future attitude of the Government about the Lucas or Williams Reports. We believe that the Bill is necessary; we give it a blessing, except for Clauses 4 and 12, and hope that marketing boards will be set up in the very near future.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown: With the leave of the House, I should like to comment on one or two points which have just been made. I think it would be extremely unfortunate if it went out that there is any strong feeling on this side about the Bill, either that it sets up vested interests or that behind it there is a capitalist-syndicalist mentality. It has long been the tradition of the Labour Party that something should be done to encourage the development of co-operative organisations, producers' co-operatives, which have been such a success in various parts of the Continent and Scandinavia. It was found up to 1931, however, that one of the things which had been lacking in enabling this to be done was the support which the original Act gave to these schemes after they had been formed—

Mr. Daines: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Co-operative movement in this country is opposed to this Bill and the principles underlying it?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend must make his own declaration of faith; I am making the declaration of faith of the Government and the party which supports and keeps it in power. We believe that schemes such as the Milk Marketing Board scheme are not setting up vested interests at the expense of the consumer. Indeed, they have done an enormous amount of work to improve the consumers' position. There has not only been a consistent rise in output since the Board was set up, but where other marketing schemes have come into being there have been great improvements—for instance, in quality, technique of production, livestock, husbandry and grass conservation. Far from setting up vested interests these marketing schemes are of great value to consumers as well as producers.
I should like to repeat what my right hon. Friend has already said, so that there

can be no misunderstanding, that the Bill in no way prejudices decisions on the major recommendations of the Lucas Committee about commodity commissions. We believe that experience has shown that in appropriate cases marketing schemes can materially assist both marketing and production. Plans are ahead for producing more of these schemes. The Bill will not operate against consumers' interests, but will encourage better production and marketing of crops, particularly those not in the Schedule.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for Thursday next.—[Mr. Wilkins.]

JURIES BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
The Lords Amendments to this Bill are Amendments which were moved or accepted by the Government in another place. I am willing to explain any one of them which might be challenged, but I think I should serve the interests of the House best if I say that they are drafting Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]

COLONIAL TIMBER

8.29 p.m.

Mr. John E. Haire: I have a little more than the usual half hour tonight to draw the attention of the House to the important subject of Colonial timber. As the House will be aware, one of our post-war scarcities is timber. Prior to the war our source of supply was mainly Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and


North America, but owing to the war the former has largely been removed and it is now only slightly recovered. It is an uncertain source. As to the North American continent, it is a hard currency area and is still rigorously controlled so far as imports are concerned. These scarcities have brought the Colonies into high relief, and therefore, as timber producing areas they are much more important than ever. In fact, it is interesting to note that in pre-war years 5.9 per cent. of our hard-woods coming into this country came from the Colonies, but in 1946 that figure had soared to 26.5 per cent., in 1947 it was 20.2 per cent. and last year for the first six months it was 17.4 per cent.
I welcome the recent release of hardwoods for our timber consuming industries, but I regret that soft woods are still controlled. It will have been noted by hon. Members that the figures I have just given indicate that as a result of the recent improvement in our post-war supply, the Colonies may tend now to be neglected. I hope my hon. Friend will show us that, having developed some of our Colonial areas, we are not now proposing to neglect them. Pre-war Governments and private enterprise between them paid far too little attention to our Colonial timber resources and I hope that we are not now going back to that situation.
My purpose tonight, therefore, is to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to draw attention to important developments which have occurred in the Colonies and to ask him to encourage and stimulate the use of Colonial hardwoods. It is so very important that we should ease the pressure on our home-grown timbers, which in my opinion have been over-exploited in the war and in the immediate post-war years. My first question to him is therefore—have we a long term programme for the development of our Colonial timbers? I should like him to deny that our efforts merely add up to a short-term development to meet an urgent present problem. Could he, therefore, say what is the anticipated production and export of hardwoods in each of the next five years from our Colonial areas, and has he any programme of importation from the Colonies into this country? It

is important that w should have a fixed programme for a number of years ahead.
It would be disastrous if we allowed exploitation, even on a long-term basis, of our Colonial resources to go on in such a way that no attention is paid whatsoever to the problem of conservation and re-afforestation. It will not be necessary for me to point out that one of our greatest problems in the Colonies is soil erosion and the rapid removal of Colonial forests is going to aggravate this problem. Therefore, we must ask is the Under-Secretary satisfied that in the development of our Colonial timber resources he has got sufficient forestry officers on the spot to advise on and supervise the development?
West Africa is probably the most convenient source of Colonial timber, and, therefore, likely to be the most overworked. Would my hon. Friend let us know what development has gone on there and how far this Colony is being used as a source of supply? To turn to East Africa, I am told that a considerable amount of timber must be cleared from the groundnut area in Tanganyika. Some of it, I understand, suffers from one of the shortcomings of our tropical timber—it is very readily attacked after felling by beetle and insect. I should like to know if we have any plans for countering this menace. Can my hon. Friend release any information similar to that which he recently revealed for dealing with the tsetse fly.
The third of our important Colonial areas is the Caribbean. Before the war it was well-known to us as the source of our mahogany. The Honduras mahogany was deservedly very famous. There are 6,000 square miles of hardwoods and 100 square miles of softwoods in the British Honduras area. Could we be told if, in fact, this area is now being properly developed? It will perhaps interest the House to know that our Colonies are very deficient in softwoods, which are at present our greatest timber scarcity, but here in Honduras we have 100 square miles which may provide us with very useful relief at the present time if we could get the wood out. I should like my hon. Friend to give his attention to the development of areas like this as quickly and as carefully as possible. One might also refer to Sarawak and North


Borneo, both of which are important timber areas. Could my hon. Friend give us some information about them?
I now turn to the facilities available in the Colonies for the proper working of the timber. It has been well-known for many years that the timber is there. One of the great difficulties is getting to it and the lack of proper equipment. We talk a good deal about getting felling machinery to those parts of the world where timber is available. Could my hon. Friend in fact, tell us whether his Department is providing sufficient felling equipment for our Colonies, because if we do not get it in the near future we may not be able to get the requisite amount of timber out of them.
The second great problem is to have sufficient railways to the forests so that we can get the timber out easily. Can my hon. Friend tell us what are the dimensions of the problem here? Are we being provided with sufficient steel rails to lay down railways into our timber areas, because without such supplies of rails valuable timber such as we require cannot be extracted. The House will remember that it was only last year that we had a hold up in West Africa because of lack of locomotives. Could my hon. Friend tell us whether that problem has been overcome or is the locomotive problem one that is facing us in all our timber areas? I understand that the biggest bottleneck, particularly in West Africa, is the provision of timber conveying waggons. Has any progress been made here?
Finally, on the question of facilities, could my hon. Friend tell us about port facilities? There appeared to be great difficulty in loading timber at some of our ports, for example, at Takoradi. Are our development plans there proceeding rapidly enough? It is well known in the timber industry that it is much less economical to ship timber in the round, and it is feared that in order to overcome that, we must develop a sufficiency of saw-milling capacity. I should like my hon. Friend to indicate to us what is being done in this direction. I should like to see greater development in the dimensioning of timber so that we could ship right to this country in properly prepared and planned dimensions. I recognise that there are difficulties, because of such problems as humidity.
That leads me to speak of the local timber-using industries in the Colonies themselves. We should not regard the Colonies as merely to be exploited for our own industries. I understand that some local industries were established in West Africa during the war for the manufacture, for example, of local furniture, and that this product reached some 'quality and was not just crude native furniture. Has this industry continued under Government auspices in West Africa or has it been returned now to private hands? Will my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary say what the future is for these local Colonial industries? Is it the intention that one day they will attempt to market furniture in this country? I should like to know what encouragement is given to British manufacturers to establish local industries in the Colonies. Those manufacturers would bring to this job a great wealth of knowledge and experience. In many cases all that deters them is the lack of encouragement and particularly lack of finance.
Some of our manufacturers might well be encouraged to set up little local industries, for example in the Central Americas and in Colonies there where they would have a fairly ready access to the United States and to other nearby hard-currency areas. One other industry that might he encouraged in the Colonies is the preparation of plywoods and veneers. I believe that those local industries have not been sufficiently developed. In all this development of production, of equipment, transport, and local manufacture, it is clear that the Overseas Development Corporation ought to play a part. Is it doing so? Is it sufficiently conscious of the need for developing our colonial timber resources, or is it at the moment giving priority to food production?
Having taken the House on this brief tour of our colonial timber resources I would say that it is no good publicising them if we cannot make the timber-using industries of this country colonial-minded in their demands for timber. The good work done by the Forest Products Research Laboratory at Princes Ris-borough is not sufficiently known in this country. The laboratory is in my constituency, and I would pay a tribute to the work that it is doing. I have seen that work at first-hand. It is giving the


most valuable help to users of colonial timbers and to the furniture industry, which is beginning to show some initiative in using new colonial timbers. Much more should be done to acquaint our timber users with the qualities of colonial woods and with their suitability for furniture.
We might have more exhibitions of furniture made from colonial timber. We might have much more illustrated literature. It seems that the Forest Products Research Laboratory is suffering from unnecessary parsimony in the matter of finance and in the matter of staffing. It is quite clear that if they are to rise to this occasion and to make our furniture manufacturers conscious of the value of colonial timbers the laboratory must have a much larger staff than they have at present. Their work would be incomplete unless it were accompanied by research in the Colonies themselves. Has my hon. Friend sufficient forestry research officers in the Colonies? Are we training sufficient men to undertake this responsible and important work?
Every means must be taken to popularise these Colonial secondary hard woods. There is no doubt that these woods will become popular if they are brought into this country at fairly cheap prices. The House is probably aware that we are suffering at present from excessive prices for timbers. These Colonial woods can be marketed in this country at cheaper rates than the prevailing rates and there is no reason why they should not become more popular. I hope the day is not far distant when such woods as Abura, Akomu, Silky oak and Mninga will be as much sought after as walnut, mahogany and oak. It rests with the Colonial Office to popularise them and I hope my hon. Friend will begin that useful work in his reply tonight.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The subject which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) has raised is one which should be of great interest to us all. It is a subject on which a great deal of thought has been spent for many years and one which, before the war, provided very serious problems not only for Colonial Governments but for those who

wished to make use in this country of the timbers the hon. Member has mentioned. It is quite true, to take one vast Colonial territory alone, probably the greatest use made of timber grown in Africa is still today that of fuel. It may well be that modern developments of transport and so on will make more efficient forms of fuel more readily available and make that timber which can be converted for use outside the Colonial territories exportable at an economic price. But the fact remains, unfortunately, that up to the war years the export of most of the tropical timbers from Colonial territories was economically unsound except for the very highest grades and some very special timbers.
I would go a little further in this story and ask the Minister how far—making use of modern means—do we know what timber we have in the Colonial territories? It was only in the immediate prewar years and in the post-war years that it became possible with any accuracy to make forest surveys from the air. Owing to the improvement in aircraft, cameras, definition and analysis of photography and so on by colour processes, it is now possible to make comparatively detailed picture surveys over vast forests which are practically impenetrable in their heart and centre to human beings on foot. I ask the Minister how far are we towards getting a full picture of the forest resources of the Colonial territories as a whole. I know a great deal has been done, but I have a feeling that we have only touched the fringe of the problem and this matter is of such importance, not just to the immediate present, but to the distant future, that the sooner we can get that forest survey completed and reported on, the better it will be not only for the Colonial territories, but for us in this country. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some details about that.
The hon. Member spoke almost entirely about hardwoods. I go a long way with him on that, but I wish to stress the fact that I do not believe that by any means the sole value of Colonial timbers, which in the majority of cases are tropical timbers, or the main value in the future is going to be only in hardwoods. I would therefore ask how far have the Colonial Office gone in their survey as to the possibilities of growing


timber at exactly the other extreme, for instance, balsa wood which proved of inestimable value to us during the war in the construction of aircraft and other things and which, unfortunately, was largely confined in its more cultivated growth to territories of Central and South America, but which is of immense market value. Not only is it one of the finest insulators in the world, but, being so light, it has a very high degree of buoyancy and, as some of us know, it was used very widely by His Majesty's Forces during the war.
The production of balsa wood is something which should be taken up very actively by the Colonial Office and great interest should be taken in the whole field of exploration and experiment as to what territories are best suited to the production of balsa wood, possible users, manufacturers and Service Departments in particular in this country. How far has the drive gone to investigate whether that wood—I do not believe it is really a wood but a kind of glorified cabbage, but we will call it a wood and it is very useful—can be properly grown. Unless properly grown, it loses half its value, half its buoyancy and insulating power. There are certain definite areas in the world where it could be grown and I believe there are such areas, owing to humidity and so on, in our Colonial territories. I hope we shall push on in that matter.
The hon. Member mentioned the question of transport of timber. I have always felt that the conversion of timber on the spot in tropical climates was a matter which we should study. I have seen it applied in a small way. I know there are problems and it would mean transporting plant into difficult areas, but I do not think they are anything like the problems of getting the timber out in the rough from those difficult places. I do not think we have gone far enough in studying this matter and I suggest that we should try part manufacture. There is no reason why we should not manufacture shapes—chair legs and the rest—in the heart of Africa. It would be much easier to transport the timber in that form than by the wasteful forms of transport by which the waste wood is carried.
One of the troubles in dealing with these matters is that we have to treat the timber in extremes of climate and

humidity through which it has to pass and very little regard has been paid to this problem because until fairly recently it was not an economical proposition. I should have thought in time that those with knowledge on that side of the issue should consider what methods could be devised to transport from difficult areas so that the timber should not suffer twisting and turning and doing the things it can do unless properly treated, quite apart from the question of seasoning in this country. I do not think nearly enough attention is paid to that question.
Then there is the question of the use of tropical timbers in making up ply-woods and packings of all sorts, as well as for building purposes and so on. I cannot help feeling that it is a scandalous thing that at present we should be told that we should slow down in the collection of waste paper because, under certain arrangements, we have to import so much wood pulp and strawboard from the United States of America and Holland. It seems inconceivable that we should spend dollars and slow down the collection of waste paper in this country as a means of saving dollars. The use to which it was put was largely in the making of certain kinds of boarding and in exactly the same kinds of boardings and plys Colonial timbers could be used.
There is no currency problem there and no exchange issue arises when we are dealing with that sort of proposition. I feel that, rather than spend dollars in importing stuff which we can find by collecting more waste paper here, if we are to be allowed to do so by the grace of His Majesty's Government, we should consider the alternative of not having at any time to import so much of this plywood and raw material by examining the possibilities of our tropical forests.

Mr. Haire: Will the hon. Member say on whose authority this relaxation of the collection of waste paper has been issued?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would ask the hon. Member to ask his own Minister a question on the issue of whether it is not the case that a warning is going out to local authorities and all voluntary bodies collecting waste paper that if they go on collecting it at the same rate they will find that waste paper will be unsaleable


because the mills of this country cannot produce the board and sell it in view of the fact that we have to import straw-board. To the best of my knowledge and belief it is true, and I am very sorry to hear it.
I have asked three questions, which I hope the Under-Secretary will answer. This is a big issue. The whole of the Colonial timber problem is not merely—

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): I must not be taken, by not accepting the hon. Member's challenge, as agreeing to the truth of what he says. I have never heard of the point which he has mentioned, and it does not come within the province of my Department to make any such pronouncement, if such a pronouncement were made.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I quite appreciate that point. I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that he is not fully primed on this matter and that he was not aware that the point would be raised tonight. I strongly recommend the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire), as I would recommend myself, to put down a Question which could be answered by the appropriate Minister at the appropriate time.
We cannot look on this Colonial timber problem merely as a short-term problem. We have a vast store of wealth in the Colonial Empire if we care to see that it is properly used; and when I say "used" I include the point which was referred to by the hon. Member for Wycombe, that is, if we see to it that it is not unfairly exploited and unwisely used. To strip huge areas and fail to replant would be quite fatal from every conceivable angle, and any extension of the use and conversion of Colonial timbers must be accompanied by a proper replanting programme. I hope that we shall hear some good news in that regard, and that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance in all these respects.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. George Porter: I intervene briefly to express the point of view of those who are concerned with, the use of timber. As one who for many years had the privilege of earning his

living by the use of wood, I agree how interesting and how very desirable it would be from our point of view if we could devote our time to the use of hardwoods and in that way indulge in what at the moment are, from a timber point of view, the luxury trades in the building industries. While it is very interesting to hear talk of the possible new hardwoods that might be devoted to old processes—the making of furniture, office and shop fittings—we who are responsible for using this material in the production of the finished article in this country are mainly concerned with soft woods.
We are mostly engaged in building houses rather than in giving consideration to the possibilities of furnishings. Therefore, my particular interest is in the types of timber which we get or used to get from the Northern States of Europe, from Russia and from Canada. In view of the fact that the question has been raised particularly from the Commonwealth aspect, I wish to know what has been done in regard to speeding up the transference to this country of the timber products of Western Canada—Californian pine, Oregon pine and timbers of that sort—which are used extensively in the building of houses? We who are in the industry at the present moment are employed in making as much furniture as can be purchased and used in the houses at present. If the Under-Secretary can tell me that he can see the means whereby he could introduce more softwoods into the country so that we could employ in the building of houses a bigger percentage of wood than at the present time, I can assure him and the House that by the time we get all the houses which are needed we shall be glad to resume the luxury trades and use all the new woods mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire).

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) has done the House a service by raising this subject. I am sure that it will be recognised on all sides of the House that any contribution to the problem of timber supplies at the present time will be heartily welcomed. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has attended this


Debate, as I have, to find out what is the answer to the question which has been put to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. Can the Colonial Empire supply the timber which is so badly needed as raw material for our housing schemes? I saw the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs flit in and out. I have far more hope of the Colonial Under-Secretary than of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. There was a time when it was frequently argued: Why not get the timber we so urgently need from the Baltic States and from Russia? It is because that source of supply has dried up, because there is very little hope now of the commonsense arrangement which prevailed for so many years—

Sir William Darling: Under capitalism.

Mr. Hughes: Whether under capitalism or Socialism, I do not wish to argue. I know that one of the reasons why we are discussing the shortage of timber is the lamentable breakdown in political relations between ourselves and the U.S.S.R. That has reflected itself in a serious shortage of timber which used to come from the Baltic States and from the U.S.S.R.

Mr. Haire: Would it not be right to say that we are getting as much timber from the U.S.S.R. at the moment as they will give us?

Mr. Hughes: I am not sure of the answer to that question. We find common agreement that one of the reasons for the shortage of timber which has seriously affected the progress of our housing schemes and about which the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. G. Porter) expressed perturbation, is political disagreement which means that we no longer get the timber which we used to get from Russia. From what I can see of the international situation—I hope that I am not pessimistic—there is no possibility under present foreign policy of that relationship changing and the timber situation easing as a result of trade with Russia.
Therefore, we must turn to the Colonial territories. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) has put a most urgent and necessary question: can we from our Colonies in all parts of the

world eke out our supplies of timber? In Scotland the shortage of timber is one of the reasons why we have not made the progress that we wish to make in housing. Wherever there is a source of timber, whether it be in Africa, America or elsewhere, we would welcome any inquiry which would result in more hard or soft woods being imported.
I wish to make a suggestion which I have received from West Africa. I was rather surprised last week to get a registered letter by air mail from Gambia. It was addressed to "The Right Honourable Emrys Hughes, the Socialist Member for Ayrshire South." I am evidently more appreciated in darkest Africa than I am here, but after receiving that letter I am hopeful. The letter came from a gentleman named Sheikh Omar Fye, O.B.E. He wrote that in an issue of the "Daily Telegraph" he had read of a supplementary question which I asked about a warship called the "Implacable." I asked in view of the serious shortage of firewood in France, whether it would be possible to send back the "Implacable" to its original owners. This gentleman linked that question with the fact that there was a shortage of firewood in France and suggested that that meant an opportunity for West Africa. He supplied me with a statement which said that in Gambia he has acquired 10,000 acres of timber land from the Overseas Food Corporation. He writes:
I have acquired from the Corporation the exclusive rights to all the timber trees felled in the area, and the total quantity is estimated to be between 50,000 and 100,000 tons of timber.
The least we can do is to explore this proposition. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies will get in touch with the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Supply to inquire whether some of this timber can be brought here in order to supplement the supplies which we need for our housing schemes.
So I pass on this matter to the Under-Secretary with my blessing, in the hope that something will materialise from it. I also hope that, as a result of the suggestions thrown out in the Debate, we may find some other source of the timber so badly needed for furniture, for housing and for every kind of building construction. May I also pass on to the Under-Secretary the suggestion that he should ask the President of the Board of


Trade to see that, if timber does come from the Colonies, there should be no import duty attached to it, as there is now in the case of timber from Sweden? With these suggestions, I endorse what has been said by the hon. Member who initiated the Debate, and hope that there will be some material result from it.

9.11 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: All hon. Members must be very glad indeed that we have had the opportunity of bringing out further Colonial topics to add to the list of those which have been introduced week after week at this time of night. There has been general agreement on the desirability of making better and further use of the Colonial territories, in the interests both of the inhabitants themselves and ourselves. I suppose no other country in the world has at its disposal territories where timber of such variety is accessible and waiting to be utilised in the manufacture of many of the varied commodities which we need today.
For instance, perhaps as a result of this Debate, we may find that there have been discussions, not only with housing authorities and the Colonial Office and their representatives, but also with British Railways. I remember that when one used to travel up to London by L.M.S., as the newer coaches came along about 15 years ago, the woodwork in some of these modern coaches was quite different from that to which we had been accustomed on our journeys, and, in order that we should appreciate what they were and where they came from, labels were attached informing us that the wood came from West Africa or Queensland or some other part. I notice that I get verification from the Front Bench that that is being carried on now.
There has been and still is a great shortage of wood in this country, and I presume that it affects activities at places like Doncaster and Crewe and other railway centres, where there must be great activity now in the building of railway coaches. I hope that some discussions will take place with the Colonial representatives so that we may have some of these very fine woods, which polish up so nicely and so much better than the wood formerly used for that purpose. It would have the further

benefit of doing what we are continually asking the Government to do—improving the economic connection between many of these Colonial territories, where the standard of living is so low, and the mother country.
The building industry has been mentioned as being particularly interested in this question, and we all know that the requisite for every house built by this Government is that there must be 1.6 standards of timber. If anyone was able to offer a timberless house, I am sure the idea would receive the heartiest consideration of the Government. It seems a pity that we should be facing this great shortage of timber for our housing programme when there must be miles of forests in these territories containing timber of one kind and another which would be extremely useful to us. I do not put the blame for this situation on this Government, nor even on previous Governments. I sometimes think that the blame might be laid on the conservative attitude of people in this country who have had to do with the working of wood.
We seem to have made very few changes in the course of our history in this country in the use of wood for domestic building and so on. We have never really exploited what is at our disposal in these vast territories. The only time one sees these rather nice articles of furniture built in these various territories and made from wood either from Australia or from the Colonial territories is when one walks along the Strand and sees these exhibitions in some of our Dominions and Colonial Offices. These articles should be more and more on sale in our bigger stores and we, as a Commonwealth nation, should be accustomed more and more to buying these things in London and in other towns instead of waiting until an uncle or a nephew goes abroad to serve with the 14th Army, or something like that, and comes back lugging a specimen as a rare curio.
It should be part of our ordinary life to use these woods. To bring this about I believe the Colonial Office should work in close touch with the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Works and there should be somebody from the Colonial Office, for instance, working in


touch with the Building Research Department. That Department has done a very good job of work in the last few years in helping to economise with those scarce materials which we use in our housing programme. But how many times have they considered making up for the shortage of soft wood from the dollar countries, or from Russia, Finland or the Baltic countries, by experimenting with the use of these other varieties of wood from Africa, Gambia, British Honduras or the other parts of the sterling area, such as Australia? I think something could be done in that way. The Building Research Department has a record in the last few years of which it might well be proud.
Let us take, for instance, the question of the hardwood which was released last week. As we go round and see the houses being built in our constituencies how often do we find that the housewife has to work on one of these modern mastic floors because not enough wood can be spared to give her a more springy, wooden floor on which to stand in her kitchen? People who can afford it, buy a kind of rubber composition to put over the floor or instead of the floor which has been laid down. I am certain that many of the woods, for instance from Rhodesia, could be machined here and would last much longer than the mastic floor and longer than the carpet which people have to buy. That would be better especially in these days when people have to pay Purchase Tax on top of the price of the carpet. Let us hope that we shall not have to pay Purchase Tax on Thursday.
We are indeed grateful to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) for having introduced this topic tonight. I hope we shall be given an answer from the Under-Secretary of State to show—as he usually shows—that somebody is working on this matter in the Colonial Office; that we are building up an economy which is becoming more and more knitted together, as it should be with a great Commonwealth country, and as should have been done many years ago; and that we are now making efforts in this difficult post-war world to bring about this result.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Anything which will help us to obtain

supplies of timber or any other necessary commodity from the so-called soft currency areas will ease our burden. We feel that throughout the Colonial territories much work might usefully be done in respect of timber. I was impressed by the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), who asked what was being done by way of surveying the territories to ascertain, in the first place, what was the actual position. Take, for example, a country like Nigeria where some of us were at this time last year. The Chief Conservator of Forests told us that much of that land—the forest land—needed to be examined and scheduled as forest land for development in the future and that there was much common land, or fallow land as he described it, about which a decision had to be taken. In short, we had to decide what land we were going to develop in terms of capital equipment if it were to become a paying proposition over a period of years, perhaps a decade or a generation or several generations of time.
Under Lord Milverton, in 1945, the Chief Conservator said that something had been done by way of arranging a programme to that end, and particularly with reference to trained staff. He said that if afforestation was to proceed satisfactorily the land must be communally worked, though that was not to say there was to be expropriation, but rather that plans should be laid in advance and agreed. The Chief Conservator said that one of the difficulties was the absence of trained staff. The scheme for training afforestation officers during the war had broken down. I imagine that this is a problem common to all the Colonies. When the Under-Secretary of State replies to the Debate I hope he will tell us what progress has been made with the solution of this problem, especially in getting more European staff, because they are the sort of experienced men who have been responsible for the training of the Africans in West Africa.
I would draw attention to what was said in evidence before the Select Committee which went out to Nigeria and is published in the Fifth Report of the Select Committee. The Chief Conservator said:
It is in respect of the European staff initially required that the plan is threatened


with stultification. Forestry training was broken during the war and service in Great Britain has more attractions than that in the Colonies. The Nigerian service now is some 13 field officers short out of a total of 55.
What he is saying is that insufficient men are being trained in this country, and such men as are being trained find more attractive conditions outside the Colonies. He went on to suggest that in those circumstances, in the absence of properly trained staff, we should devise some meantime arrangements, and find men with practical knowledge of the woodlands, possibly without academic training, to be employed on the job. May we be told what progress is being made in that way? In West Africa and other parts of the Colonial Empire there are great resources at our disposal. We ought to examine them and plan to use them. I hope we shall have from the Under-Secretary of State tonight some encouragement in the hope that we shall have more building timber in the near future.

9.24 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): I am sure the House is very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) and also to the other hon. Members who have spoken, for raising this problem. It is a most important subject. We shall have more and more to rely upon these sources of timber. The problem before us is to preserve sufficient areas of forest to maintain soil fertility and water supplies. I put that before the second problem, which I shall mention in a moment. It is particularly important to preserve these areas of tropical forests because owing to the heavy rain and strong wind and sun if there is destruction of the trees it leads to orchard bush, to savanna and finally to desert. Thus the end of the process is, of course, little short of disastrous. Anyone who has seen the film which was shown quite recently in the "Modern Age" series, the name of which for the moment escapes me, will remember how tragic has been this cycle in history. We must take steps to ensure that in our forest policy we do not create fresh deserts.
Another important matter is that these great tropical forests create humus and

when they are stripped little remains, and certainly no humus remains, in which to re-establish the forest. Therefore, this forest policy must be carefully safeguarded with regard to the cutting out of trees. It has been calculated—although I am not able to vouch for it personally—that in the last 5,000 years two-fifths of the world's forests have been destroyed, and as the population of the world increases so does that population impinge to an ever-greater extent upon the remaining forest land.
The second problem—and I put it second purposely because I think that it is of lesser importance than the first—is to meet the increasing world demand for timber. It is on that aspect, rather than the first, that most of the speeches have been made tonight. Before the war, the United Kingdom imported 379 million cubic feet of softwood and 46 million cubic feet of hardwood every year. Now, with the need to turn to soft currency and sterling sources, we find that many of the pre-war sources of timber both in softwood and hardwood are no longer available. Hardwood exports from the Colonies to the United Kingdom rose from 2.7 million cubic feet before the war to about 6.6 million cubic feet in 1947, and the total export of hardwoods from the Colonies in 1947 was 13,540,000 cubic feet. It is expected—and here I answer the hon. Member for Wycombe—that by 1953 the total export will have risen to 22 million cubic feet.
In order to comply with the two prerequisites which I have mentioned, what is the policy of the Government? First, the policy is to ensure that the climatic and physical conditions of the country are preserved by control and maintenance or rehabilitation of vegetation and water supplies. Secondly, to supply in perpetuity all forms of forest produce, and, thirdly, to ensure that enough forest trees are available to provide shade for certain crops, such as cocoa, which must have shade in order to survive. All the Colonies are taking steps to ensure that their forestry policy is designed to meet the considerations which I have enumerated. Most of them have substituted systematic block felling of trees for the selective felling that went on in the old days. We have increased the research on the properties and uses of lesser known timbers on which I shall speak at greater length in a few moments.
The Forest Products Research Laboratory, of which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) spoke, has done most valuable work as a link between the timber producer and the timber consumer, and throughout the Colonies we are improving transport facilities and communications as rapidly as supplies permit. So, too, we encourage sawmill, plywood, and veneer production in the Colonies. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe that everything is being done to work the timber on the spot, because as a rule about 50 per cent. of any tree is waste, and if we bring it over here it means bringing double the quantity we can use. It is obviously more convenient and economical to process the timber on the spot.
In order to encourage this processing the United Kingdom Government have informed all the Colonies that we shall continue to buy all the available sawn timber they can produce, subject to price and quality, almost indefinitely. I think that should prove a great inducement, not only for the production of timber but also for its processing on the spot. Then we are encouraging the production of softwoods in every way we possibly can.

Dr. Morgan: May I intervene before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point? Many of these Colonial woods are poisonous. For example, the obeche wood in West Africa produces dermatitis when its dust contacts human skin. Others, like African boxwood, when used in this country produce general poisonous symptoms amongst workers handling them. Would it not be better to have these woods brought here in bulk, where medical services and the best treatment might be available, rather than have the cutting up of these woods done in Africa amongst African or native workers, where medical services may be in short supply?

Mr. Rees-Williams: My hon. Friend has raised a most important point. It is one to which we have given consideration. I believe that it is quite possible to have the necessary regulations in force in the Colonies to protect the workers there. I shall certainly see that the point he has made is brought to the notice of Govern-

ments where there is any intention to process the woods locally. I have been in some of these sawmills, and I was not told by anybody there that there was any difficulty on these lines; but I shall certainly take that up with the Governments concerned, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing it to my attention.
The only indigenous softwoods are in pines found in British Honduras. As the House knows, the softwood, the coniferous type, is found in temperate climes; most of the Colonial territories are in tropical climes, and as a general rule very few softwoods are available. The only one available at the moment on a commercial scale is the Caribbean pine in British Honduras.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is there no Colonial balsa wood available?—if the hon. Gentleman is calling that a wood; I am not quite sure if he is.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I had intended to answer that point later, but I shall do so now. There is some balsa wood—which seems to have dangerous properties, not so much to the workers as to the soil—being grown in Trinidad, but I am told by the forestry experts that they do not consider it the sort of wood which we ought to encourage, owing to its effect upon the soil. I am in their hands; I cannot myself answer whether that is so or not, but that is what I am advised.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: This is a rather important matter. The Minister is not suggesting that in other parts of the world where balsa wood is grown, to great profit and advantage, the soil is all poisoned? Is he really saying that that is the only one of our Colonial territories where investigation has been made, and where it has been proved possible to grow balsa wood at all?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is what I am told. I can only give the information with which I have been supplied on this particular wood. It is being developed—I do not say grown—only in Trinidad. The forestry departments are rather suspicious of it owing to the effect it is alleged to have on the soil. I shall take the matter up further, and if there is any change in the advice I have been given I will get in touch with the hon. Member.
Finally, the last way in which we are carrying out the policy I mentioned is


by bulk purchases. We try in every possible way to use primary timbers, and bulk purchase has certainly been a powerful factor in developing the use of secondary hardwoods.
Having dealt with the principles underlying our policy, I shall try now to answer some of the specific questions that have been put. I have been asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe and Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies) what we are doing about staff. I must admit that we have not nearly enough staff by way of forestry officers, although we are prejudiced here by the fact that very few forestry officers were being trained during the long period of the war. I am informed, however, that the recruitment of forestry officers is now proceeding satisfactorily. In three years time, as they come out of the universities, we shall have filled the vacancies which now exist.
I have been asked about the development of West African timber, and also timbers in various other parts of the Colonial Empire. It would be wearisome to the House if I were to go through every part of the Colonial Empire and specify in detail what is happening. For those Members who are interested, I would direct their attention to the second report of the Colonial Primary Products Committee which is available and which was published in January this year. That report contains exact details of the forestry situation in practically every Colony and it will give all the information that is required. I was asked one point on the ground nut scheme, namely, the use of the timber which is becoming available there as the area is cleared. There are three classes of timber becoming available. The first is the fine timber, which is usable but forms a comparatively small proportion of the whole. The second is a larger proportion, the hard and heavy timber which is not impervious to attack by termites. The third is of mixed and uncertain value.
In the first class Mninga is predominant. It is a hard, heavy, durable timber, resistant to white ants, and is used for constructional work. It can be left for two years in the log without deterioration. In the second class we have the tough, coarse grain timber, which could be used for sleepers but would require creosoting under pressure. This timber requires pre-

liminary arsenical treatment within two weeks of felling, and the main preservation treatment has to be done after six months seasoning in a central plant. As to the density of trees, there are only two trees per acre that can be used for sleepers, involving complicated questions of transport as well as treatment and saw-milling, which make it uneconomical for use in any quantity.
I was asked about wagons in the Gold Coast. The House will be glad to know that we have on order low-sided wagons that are being specially built for timber carrying. There are 220 on order, with 20 to be delivered in May, 40 in June and the remainder at frequent intervals. We should have plenty of rolling stock to deal with the timber situation in the Gold Coast. I am glad to say that the Colonial Development Corporation are taking a very keen interest in the timber possibilities of the Empire and, with the Timber Department, are investigating the position in various Colonies. I understand that their report is to be published quite soon, when hon. Members will see how far they have gone in this direction.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe asked what use could be made in this country of timber which had been prepared in the Colonies. I am glad to say that the Timber Control will licence up to one million cubic feet of timber for flooring material. They will also licence all the short length strips and floor blocks which are available, up to £70,000 worth of broom and brush handles, and up to £50,000 worth of tool handles. They also permit non-utility furniture for re-export and parts satisfactorily cut, sawn, shaped and planned to specific dimensions. So, on the whole, there is a considerable market here, quite apart from bulk timbers, for timbers which have been processed in Colonial territories.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare asked how we knew what timber we had available. We do not. We have had an aerial survey made during the last few years, and have photographed an area about four times the size of the United Kingdom, mainly in Africa. This has given us a considerable amount of information about tropical forests, and the Director of Colonial Surveys, Brigadier Hotine, is now in British


Guiana making the necessary arrangements for a survey there. We are also having a survey made—some of it has already been done—in Malaya, and eventually the survey team will move up to North Borneo. But here, again, we have to cut our coat according to our cloth and remember that trained specialists, particularly on the mapping rather than the photographic side, are limited.
On the question of wood pulp, while it is true that 90 per cent. of the world's paper comes from wood, the bulk of it is made from coniferous timbers which are, of course, softwoods. There are very few softwoods in the Empire. The only ones saleable at the moment are in British Honduras, but we have considerable softwood development schemes in hand in Kenya, Tanganyika and Nyasaland. They will not, of course, come to maturity for a very long time. I do not suppose any Member here now will ever see these softwoods developed. In forestry, we have to plan for posterity and work to a long-term programme. The House will be glad to know that in these territories we have a big programme in view for the production of softwoods, which will rejoice the heart of the Labour Government which will be in power when that time arrives.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) read a letter, the object of which I am not quite sure, but it was from a gentleman in Gambia. I take it he was offering the hon. Member for South Ayrshire an agency for the sale of this timber in this country. We may expect to see a headline in "Forward" that the hon. Member is now going into the timber industry in a big way.
I should not like to confirm or deny the allegation made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth that the building industry in this country is conservative—I hope it is the only sense in which it is conservative—in the use of timber, but I would ask it to regard very seriously what he has said tonight in this respect and to make use of the services which are available to it in this country in the Timber Research Institute. The Institute is doing a tremendous lot of work on these exotic timbers; many of them are delightful and would afford great pleasure to the people of this country. I hope the House will

be satisfied that within the means at our disposal the Colonial Office and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are doing everything they possibly can to develop and husband the special forestry resources of the Empire.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Could the right hon. Gentleman say if the Aerial Forest Survey is devoting its time to areas the timber of which is more likely to be of immediate value and use?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The Aerial Survey Squadron have to operate according to the weather, and, therefore, they have to move from various places, because during heavy rains in the tropics photographs cannot be taken. Within that limitation, they take photographs of large areas not merely from the forestry point of view, and the ultimate object is to photograph the whole of the Empire. It is being done systematically and forestry has a definite importance and place in the steady advance of our photographic survey.

SOMALIS (GOVERNMENT)

9.47 p.m.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I wish to raise the question of the future government of the Somali people, including those in British Somaliland, the Ogaden, Somalia, which was formerly Italian Somali-land, and Jubaland. In answer to a Question of mine today, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that British Somaliland is to remain as a British Protectorate. As regards the Ogaden, with the exception of some border districts, it is to revert to Ethiopian administration. The future of the former Italian colony of Somalia, which includes Jubaland, is to be decided by the United Nations General Assembly. It is impossible to regard such an arrangement as satisfactory either to the Somali people or, I would suggest, to this country. Many of us frankly are suspicious of the possibility of Somali coming again under Italian rule. What claim have the Italians to consideration? They did not rule the Somalias well. Indeed, we know from evidence that they ruled them very badly, for they oppressed the people and treated them as slaves. Their rule was harsh and bad in the extreme. Certainly they are not wanted back by the Somalis.
In the war, in which they eventually lost Somaliland, the Italians were the aggressors. They wantonly attacked British Somaliland as well as Britain herself wherever they had a chance. They were well and deservedly beaten and I suggest they deserve no further consideration whatsoever. This country which was the victor over aggression of the worst description is certainly deserving of some consideration. On 4th October, 1944, the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said that Italy would not get Somaliland back. On 11th October, 1944, in reply to a supplementary question, this was confirmed by his then Under-Secretary of State. After the Italians were driven out in 1941 and 1942, for the first time for hundreds of years practically the whole Somali people were united under one rule. That rule was that of the British. They were not only united but they were contented, also for the first time for a very long time, for most of them.
The people of British Somaliland, of the Ogaden and Jubaland are of one race. That fact has not always been recognised and realised. Indeed, so are those of French Somaliland; 90 per cent. of the people speak the same language. I suggest that they ought to be united. They occupy an area of very nearly 2,000 miles of coastline. That is an important area which ought not to be in any hands conceivably hostile to the British. As regards French Somaliland there is no question of change and there never has been. The French have never been willing that there should be.
Was there not a plan—we know in fact that there was a plan—for a united Somaliland? It was a British plan. It was to have been under United Nations organisation trust, but under British administration. Was not that plan popular with the Somali peoples? Were they not all prosperous, happy and hopeful for the future, because a promise had been given to them by the British Government that the Somali people would never again be divided and placed under foreign rule? Now the Ogaden has gone back to Ethiopia and Somalia may be given back to Italy under a decision of U.N.O. Other races and peoples are being given the prospect of self-government. We

have the examples of India and Burma, for what they are worth. No such prospect is given to the Somalis, who have been uniformly friendly to us. No one speaks a good word for them either in the Foreign Office or anywhere else. I do not hesitate to say that the plan for a united Somaliland was sound and just—I have it on the evidence of many people who have the best of reasons for knowing—and that it was accepted generally by the Somalis.
It was only the weakness of British garrisons and the apparent indecision of British policy that led to increasing demands by Ethiopia—which had not much claim on Somaliland—and to a feeling of uncertainty in the Somali territories about what was going to happen to them. My information is that soldiers, officials, traders and the Government of Kenya are all in favour of a united Somaliland under British administration, and I believe that information to be correct. Are their opinions to be entirely disregarded? What do the United Nations, except ourselves, know about this matter? I wonder whether United Nations members and officials could put their finger on the map where Somaliland is?
As for the French, they are perfectly consistent. The one thing that they have made absolutely clear and perfectly rightly, from their point of view now, is that they are going to stick to their part of Somaliland and they are not suggesting that there is any question that their rule should be changed and that they should clear out. They are apparently suggesting through the League of Nations, that we might do so. We are not desired to have any advantage from having been successful in war, after having been attacked in circumstances of almost unbelievable aggression. We are not to have any gain of any sort, or kind, or description, and even our own British Somaliland is to go under some sort of trusteeship under the United Nations.
Naturally the Somali people are bewildered at what has happened. At one moment they thought, that after something like five years of steady rule under British administration, during which they were prosperous, contented and happy, that they were not going to be put back under any foreign rule, and above all not under Italian rule, which they feared and disliked more than all the rest put to-


gether. It will be a slur on our revutation and upon the prestige of this country if we give away these peoples. It is what we are proposing to do, it seems. In consequence of what has happened, the British are now looked down upon, almost disliked and more or less distrusted. Our prestige is completely gone down in the world. I was going to say that is does not exist, but I would not say that. It is very much diminished, for the same reason that it has diminished in some other parts, especially in the East, because we have not had a strong and consistent policy. We have been vacillating. We have been hesitating. We have been making concessions to everybody who chose to have the effrontery to ask for what they had no right or entitlement to. I am referring particularly to the Italians.
I hope very much that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give us some assurance that British interests will be considered. One British interest apart from any others, and apart from our British interest in good government wherever we have any form of British territory, Colony or mandate, is that there is a very distinct advantage to this country in having those 2,000 miles of coastline under British administration, free from potential enemies and past enemies such as are the Italians. I hope we may have some sort of assurance that British interests are to be considered in this matter and that the interests of the Somalis themselves are not to be subordinated to the ambitions and pique of Italian feelings.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) will permit me to disagree with the conclusions to which he has come, although I am happy to say that I start from the same premises he has laid down in his closing sentences—that is to say, I think the question should be considered from the point of view of British interests and the interests of the Somali peoples. I hope to show that those premises lead, however, to different conclusions from those to which he has come.
The first argument of the hon. and gallant Member was that we had defeated Italy in the war and that therefore Italy was entitled to no consideration from us. I suggest that begs a great deal

of recent history. I need not go into the whole of that history. Those who sat with me in the last Parliament know that I had to do many battles in That Parliament for a proper understanding of Italy. For a long time now it has been accepted that Italy has "worked her passage," in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, and that British interests demand the friendship of a strong Italy. Italy has quite recently been welcomed into the North Atlantic Pact and as a founder member of the Council of Europe. It is unnecessary for me to go into all the reasons—
It being Ten o'Clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell]
—for this attitude, but I had hoped that they were now accepted by all people in this country as certainly they have been accepted among all the principal parties. If I may express my own view in a sentence or two it is that a dismayed Italy was led into war against us by a megalomaniac Mussolini, that she never really fought against us, but her armies staged "soldiers' strikes" and surrendered by the hundred thousand at the earliest opportunity, and that as soon as they could, by industrial action, by a powerful resistance movement and by action taken by the King and the Army leaders, the Italians overthrew the Fascist regime and gave substantial help to the Allied cause. They certainly gave far more assistance to the Allied cause than they ever gave to the German cause. I trust, therefore, that however this question is settled it will not be settled on a punitive basis. We should be taking an entirely wrong attitude if we sought to settle the question of Italian Somaliland on the basis of it being a punishment for Italy.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I am not for one moment suggesting punishment. I am suggesting that they ought to get no advantage out of the part which they played in the war.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I think it can very well be argued that whoever gets Italian Somaliland will get no advantage out of it. I do not think that any of the Somali territories are of any advantage to anyone. They are territories of which we


can justly say that they are a white man's burden.
My hon. and gallant Friend proceeded to argue that Italian rule in Somaliland was bad. That is not my view. We must compare like with like, and if we compare Italian rule in Italian Somaliland with French rule in French Somaliland or British rule in British Somaliland or with the independent State of Ethiopia, there is no need for the Italians to be ashamed of what they did. In the territory of Eritrea their administration was remarkably good, and showed what they could do when they had a suitable terrain. In Italian Somaliland they were dealing with intractable problems. If we look at British Somaliland we can see that more was accomplished in the days of British military administration, thanks to the large sums of money which that administration had at its disposal, other was accomplished in some generations of previous Colonial rule. I do not think it can be established that Italian rule was bad in Italian Somaliland.
My hon. and gallant Friend used as his third argument the case for the unity of the Somali peoples. He said the Somalis were united under British rule in the war and that it was a great pity that that unity should now be broken up. I should like to submit to him that if that principle is consistently followed it will lead to a great many difficulties. If the Somalis are to be united why should not many other peoples in Africa be united? I do not want to put ideas into the heads of evil-minded people so I will mention only one, which has come out publicly at the United Nations. I refer to the case of the Ewe tribe in West Africa, who are divided between the Gold Coast, British Togoland and French Togoland. A demand has arisen among some of them for unification, and if we proceeded on the same basis among all the tribes of Africa it would play havoc with the existing frontiers. I believe that once we begin interfering with frontiers we never know where the process will stop, and that it is better to leave well alone.
The plan for a United Somalia, with which I am very familiar, never would have worked. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, it was put up officially by the United Kingdom. It was proposed that not all but the greater part of the

Somali peoples should be united in a United Somalia. But we could get no support for this scheme. The reasons are not far to see, for every other country except ourselves thought that this plan was a scheme for the aggrandisement of British territory under the name of a British trusteeship. Indeed, it looked suspiciously as though Ethiopia were being invited to surrender the Ogaden by the bribe of Eritrea, which was not ours to offer in any case. The offer having been made and having received no support, it was officially and publicly withdrawn some years ago.
Let us be clear. This never was a plan for a United Somalia in the full sense, as my hon. and gallant Friend recognised. France was never willing to enter this scheme; but it may be said that French Somaliland is a small territory and the scheme could go ahead without it. But there are Somalis also in Kenya. I doubt very much whether we should have been willing to include the Somalis of Kenya in the scheme. There are a very large number of Somali peoples, or people akin to the Somalis, in Ethiopia, and it was quite certain that Ethiopia would not touch the scheme except under compulsion. Therefore, I do not think that there was ever any great likelihood that this scheme would be attractive to the other countries concerned.
My hon. and gallant Friend says, however, that it was attractive to the Somali peoples. It is not easy for us to get authentic information about the views of the Somali peoples. I have done my best to get such information as I can from Somalis I have met. I have found that such Somalis as I have met from British Somaliland were not keen on the scheme. They saw a possibility, if they remained under straightforward British Colonial administration, that in a relatively short time they would achieve self-government within the Commonwealth. But if that arrangement were upset, they saw it as a retrograde rather than a forward movement in their constitutional development.
There is one last point I should like to make. It has been put rather forcibly recently by an expert who is most familiar with these parts, Mr. R. H. A. Merlem who, in letters to the "Crown Colonist" and to the paper "East Africa


and Rhodesia," has argued that a United Somalia would be an excellent place for Communist activities throughout Africa. One reason is that most of the Somalis who go abroad are sailors or work in ports. They have been particularly exposed to Communist propaganda in their work. If they return to a united and independent Somaliland, in all probability many of them would be Communist agents. As it would be an independent territory, we should have no control over them. The same fears have been expressed with regard to Ethiopia—the fear that the Soviet Embassy in Addis-Ababa is being used as a base for Communist propaganda. I have been into this question as carefully as I can and, frankly, I do not think that the case is proved. The Russian activities in Addis-Ababa are not noticeably larger than they should be to fulfil the purposes of a diplomatic mission. It is, however, easy for us to see that this danger exists.
I submit that, on all these grounds, my hon. and gallant Friend has not proved his case, but, rather, that we should go slowly in this matter. I think it will certainly be to our interests and in the interests of the Somali peoples if British Somaliland should remain under British rule, the Ogaden should go back to Ethiopian administration, and that Italy should have a trusteeship for Italian Somaliland.

10.10 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) has obviously studied the situation in Somalia considerably, and, although I have not done so, I would like to intervene in this Debate if only to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) on rectifying something to which I have objected more and more as this Parliament has proceeded, and that is the way in which this House becomes a rubber stamp for the behaviour of U.N.O.
At the present time, we find it extremely difficult ever to debate anything which U.N.O. is to discuss, and it is a welcome fact that this evening we have a chance of debating something which touches partly on a matter that is to be discussed by U.N.O. in a very short time. That matter is the future of the

Italian Colonies. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Keighley to say that Italy is working her passage very well, but what we have to remember is that, where a specific pledge has been given to any people by His Majesty's Government, that pledge cannot be broken unless we have the permission of the people to whom it was given. There are specific pledges which have been given both by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Learning-ton (Mr. Eden) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) in the last Parliament or in the Parliament before, which make it certain that there is no question whatever that the Italian Empire in Africa was irrevocably lost to Italy as far as this country is concerned.
I am perfectly prepared to believe that if we got permission from all the countries in the Italian Empire to an arrangement whereby Italy should take a joint trusteeship under the United Nations, we could consider ourselves absolved from that promise, but until we get that assurance, that promise stands and ought to stand, and I hope the Foreign Secretary is going to say so, when this matter is discussed by U.N.O. We ought to have learned the lesson by now, from Palestine if. from nowhere else, that when we make a promise and then make another promise that is incompatible with the first, we merely cause misery to other people as well as to ourselves and also lose the respect which the people concerned in the first instance have for us.
We are going to do exactly the same thing again in the case of the Italian Colonies in Africa, if we are not very careful. It is a horrifying fact that the British delegate to the conference of deputies of the Foreign Minister, when they were discussing this matter last year, joined with the United States and France in recommending, an Italian trusteeship for Italian Somaliland. What right have we to do that? In my opinion, we have no right whatever, unless we are asked to do so by the people of Somaliland, and I do not believe that we have asked them. It is as a last-minute protest—because the United Nations are about to discuss this matter and decide the whole future of these territories—that I join with my hon. and gallant Friend tonight in the hope that U.N.O., which


has shown itself incapable of making a just decision over anything else, will at least think again over this matter.

10.15 p.m.

Colonel Dower: I must apologise for not being in the Chamber when the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) introduced this subject In view of the fact that I was in Somalia four or five months ago, I hope I may be allowed for three or four minutes to put forward such views as I gathered when I was there. When I saw that a Question had been put down today I came to the House at Question time. The Under-Secretary of State in reply to my supplementary question, said that the territories were not in favour of the British continuing their influence in that part of the world.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): The hon. and gallant Member said they were unanimously in favour and I said there was no unanimity.

Colonel Dower: There may be 10 per cent. or 5 per cent. against, but I can assure the Under-Secretary—and I do so with the best of good will and I have travelled throughout Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda and the Sudan—that not only official circles, and very high official circles, although I do not wish to mention names, but also the white population and a considerable amount of the native population were against the return of these territories to Italy.
I am a great admirer of Italy; I love Italy. I was in Italy for the Italian elections as a guest of the Italian Government and I have never seen elections conducted on a higher scale. I think they beat our own elections. I saw no intimidation of any sort, although I was in what they call the Red part of Milan when it came to the final night. I have never seen a country more inspired by the spirit of democracy than were the Italians. I have great love for that country because unquestionably they have many qualities, of art, of music, of every kind, which are possessed by no other country in the world.
When I was in Kenya—and here I must disagree with the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas)—I found that even in that far away spot there

was Communist infiltration. It seems incredible that thousands of miles away where there is only big game and natives, one finds that the Communist machine has penetrated even into those distant parts. I saw a lot of a movement called the Somali Youth Movement, which was unquestionably inspired by Communist propaganda which had penetrated into Kenya. While admiring the Italians—and I hope they will indeed earn their passage home—I must say that one Italian in three in these days is a Communist. The other two are very strongly anti-Communist, but at the same time we must realise that the field for activity by the Soviet Union is a very big one, because they are able to work through a vast number of Italians. It is not the fault of Signor de Gasperi or the Italian Government. The Italian population is 50 million, so there must be 15 million Communists, which is a very big number of enemies and traitors not only to ourselves but to Italy as well.
I therefore humbly suggest that we should go very slowly in this matter; that while encouraging Italy in every possible way and while not showing ourselves narrow-minded or bigoted about the regrettable action which she committed during the early and middle part of the war, yet we must be realists and accept the views which are unquestionably held by the people who live in close contact with Somalia that the present is a very wrong time in which Somaliland should be handed back to Italy.

10.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): We have had the advantage of a number of expert views on this subject tonight. The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) was critical of the attitude of His Majesty's Government from a somewhat different standpoint from that of the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys). He showed the position of the Italian contribution which can be made, I think, to Western civilisation and the importance of Italy in the building up of Western Europe. His attitude, therefore, to this problem contrasted somewhat with the rather unconstructive attitude towards Italy shown by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield. A number of the points raised by the hon. and gallant


Member for Petersfield were, I think, extremely cogently answered by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas). I found myself in agreement with a number of the points which the hon. Member for Keighley made.
Reference was made to the United Somalia proposal. It is, of course, true that a proposal for a United Somalia was put forward by the Foreign Secretary to the Council of Foreign Ministers in Paris in 1946. The proposal was not supported by the other Powers, and was withdrawn. It was opposed mainly by the Soviet Union and by France. The French Government support the general solution of trusteeship for the ex-Italian Colonies. We have to bear in mind the views of those Powers. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Peters-field was putting forward this proposal as a matter of practical politics. I do not know how he proposes to proceed to implement the views he holds. I do not know whether he seriously believes that 'this project will get the two-thirds majority at the General Assembly which it requires. What he says, irrespective of the merits of the proposal, is simply not practical politics today. Nor is there any reason to believe that, as he suggested, all the Somalis are in favour of that proposal. A number may be; they may not he. We were not told what the basis of the hon. and gallant Member's belief was. We have had the first hand testimony of the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I did not mention names for very excellent reasons, and I will only say that the source of my information was military, and high military.

Mr. Mayhew: I, too, have my sources of information on this subject, and I do not think we can jump to the conclusion—I do not think there is sufficient evidence to say—that the Somali people as a whole supported the proposal—or, at any rate, to say it with the confidence of the hon. and gallant Member. He also gave the impression to the House that there was almost unanimous hostility to Italy amongst the Somali people. I think the hon. and gallant Member's information—I am not sure of its source—is somewhat out of date. Our latest information suggests that there is no un-

animous hostility to Italy. That is certainly what is shown by our latest information; and, indeed, it is shown by the report of the Four-Power Commission which, of course, sent a body to make inquiries on this very point.
A number of Somalis are admittedly strongly anti-Italian, mostly, I think, those coming from the so-called Somali Youth League, but our information is that this league is unrepresentative, and that it has lost whatever influence it had. I do not think that we should jump to the conclusion that there is united hostility to Italy among the Somalis. The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth was worried by the existence of Communism in Italy. Certainly that is a factor which needs to be borne in mind when we are considering this general problem. May I suggest, on the other hand, that one of the ways in which Italian democracy can be strengthened is if other countries of Western Europe show an understanding and a constructive and friendly spirit towards the Italian people. That again is a factor which we must consider in making up our minds on these problems.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), in a vigorous speech, stated that this House was becoming a rubber stamp for the United Nations. That struck me as an extravagant description of this House. Whether or not the United Nations is capable of rubber-stamping anything in the unanimous and forceful way implied by this phrase I am not sure: in any case, I think that it would be a very hard case to prove. He also held against the Government that we had made two contradictory proposals on Palestine. Again, that is an accusation which should be directed elsewhere.
Returning to the Four-Power Commission, I think that I should draw the attention of the House to the conclusions reached by the body which was sent out by the Four-Power Commission. It concluded that the majority of the Somalis wanted Four-Power trusteeship leading to independence. The report emphasised that the Somalis wanted almost any government which would guarantee peace and security and that the Somalis were not ready—I think that this is probably agreed between us—for immediate independence. There were


Somalis, the report stated, who resented the idea of an Italian return, but also there were many others in that part of the world where sentiment among the Somalis was strongly pro-Italian. It is not legitimate to say that at the time when this report was made there was general hostility to the idea of an Italian return.
Since that time, I think that there is no doubt that such hostility as there was has greatly decreased. The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield suggested that these people were entitled to independence, and, of course, the idea of independence for the Somalis is not ruled out by Italian trusteeship. He seemed to suggest, on the other hand, that British trusteeship meant independence and Italian trusteeship, equally under the

League of Nations, meant the end of all hope of independence. That is not so. The purpose of the United Nations trusteeships which are obligatory and become binding on the trustee countries is that they shall lead forward the peoples to independence, and there is every expectation that that would be so if Somaliland returned to Italian trusteeship. The House will not expect me to anticipate the decision of the United Nations Assembly on this question, but whatever the views—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.